No more Jump Putting?

[hellbound]

I'd like to add tail marking as an option so players could use the disc on the ground and keep the current options so there's at least "one disc" width flexibility in marking position.

I could live with that.
I just see tail marking only happening at worlds or some other big tournament and making a big uproar. Ricky lands in front of a tree and cant get a legal stance behind the disc due to extra large feet. Has to move to the backside of a big 4 foot dia. tree and has no look. Paul had the same throw same place, owes Ricky a beer, but has smaller feet and fits behind the disc. His stance is tight to the tree without any real balance but has a clear view of the basket and drains long putt for a stroke lead. Note: I don't know what size feet they have

 

[hellbound]

I have the perfect solution for everyone (and yet nobody will like it )

Require players to remain behind the mark until the disc is at rest in the basket. Otherwise you must proceed to mark and hole out. That way it completely eliminates jump putts and gives you a choice to go for it on fairway throws. Think you can put it in from the fairway? Better stand and deliver. Just want to throw it far? Go past your mark.

What happens if you have a ace or a albatross? opcorn:

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think the better rule would be to shift the mark to the front of a thrown disc so there is no flexibility at all.

Yep, that's old school, ball golf thinking but just not as flexible for varied marking situations as applying the current rule and adding tail marking. We already have fuzzy locations where the lie can be moved when near OB lines, plus casual and solid object relief and I'm guessing judging the position when marking under a disc in a tree can sometimes exceed one disc width if it were possible to drop a plumb bob from the front of the disc.

 

[Steve West]

I think the better rule would be to shift the mark to the front of a thrown disc so there is no flexibility at all.

So, every throw would need to be marked with a mini? I don't want to bend over to reach the ground another 54 times per round.

Or, are you saying step on the thrown disc? I don't want to do that either.

 

[JC17393]

I think the better rule would be to shift the mark to the front of a thrown disc so there is no flexibility at all.

You know what the stupidest thing is about the proposed tail marking rule? The fact that 15 years ago, the rules were changed from requiring use of a mini at every lie to allowing the thrown disc to be left as one's marker (the birth of having a choice in lies). The old rule was consistent in there only being one lie and the rules committee chose to change that. Now they want to go back to only having one lie no matter what the player does.

There was and remains only one "benefit" to the change from 2002, and that is as Steve alludes, you don't have to bend down to place your mini on every lie if you don't want to. From a game play perspective, there really is nothing gained from not requiring the lie to be marked with a mini. It was a back-saving rule change and little more.

The spirit of mini-marking the lie was always the notion that your next throw would come with a support point exactly on the place where your last throw landed. The lie was shifted off that place with the current marking rule, at least part of the time. Tail-marking would eliminate entirely the notion of playing every throw from where the previous throw landed.

So basically, if they're going to change the marking rules to make it so there is only one lie with no flexibility, then go back to the old rule of using a mini to mark at the front of the thrown disc every single time. No more leaving the thrown disc as the marker.

 

[SonicGuy]

So, every throw would need to be marked with a mini? I don't want to bend over to reach the ground another 54 times per round.

Or, are you saying step on the thrown disc? I don't want to do that either.

No. You have 30 cm behind the lie, and a disc is under 22. Plant your foot within 8 cm of the back of your disc.and you don't have to mark. Easy peasey.

 

[SonicGuy]

What happens if you have a ace or a albatross? opcorn:

If you get an ace but followed through your mark you would have to mark and putt out, ace denied.

 

[Steve West]

If you get an ace but followed through your mark you would have to mark and putt out, ace denied.

ESPN Not Top Ten.

 

[Steve West]

...
So basically, if they're going to change the marking rules to make it so there is only one lie with no flexibility, then go back to the old rule of using a mini to mark at the front of the thrown disc every single time. No more leaving the thrown disc as the marker.

It's good to review the history so we don't inadvertently repeat it. However, not all progress is a straight line away from the past. Most often, human progress takes a roundabout route because the destination is unknown until we get there.

Since our origins owe much to golf, it's sometimes helpful to look there for inspiration. The most analogous definition of "the lie" would be that you have to throw the same disc and the disc cannot move from the place it landed until you start your throwing motion. Yank it off the ground and let go.

That doesn't work. So, what is the broader concept? Throw from where it lands. Most of the time, it is clear where the disc lands because it's still lying there. But, where exactly are you throwing from? There seems to be agreement that the forward-most supporting point defines the "where".

If we look back to golf, the ball is put in play from the back of the ball. The forward most part of the club is touching the part of the ball that is (normally) farthest from the cup.

This all tells me that saying that the forward most supporting point cannot be closer to the target than the back of the disc (and should be near it) is just as good an analog as "throw while touching the spot the disc is covering".

Anyway, we don't need to be like golf, so we're free to make the general rule "throw from behind the thrown disc" if we want to - even if it had no analogy to golf. Thus, we can say the original rule of marking the front of the disc (ie throw from the spot the disc was covering) was not anything special that needs to be preserved.

If we make the rule that the thrown disc is always the marker, then the only exception is when the thrower wants to use that disc which is lying on the ground defining the lie (or hold it in his hand to decide whether to throw it or not). For that, there are two possible rules:

A. Tough. Leave it there and use another disc.
B. OK, if you really need to use that disc again, at least don't gain an extra few inches toward the basket.

I don't think the minimal movement of the thrown disc from marking the back of the disc would be a problem. For one, it's a lot less movement than moving the lie a full width of a disc. For another, most throws would not be marked by a mini.

Sure, I'd often need to mark my first drive because I need to use the special disc that gives me the least shortest throw again. And maybe again. But, most of the time most players are changing discs from throw to throw, right?

 

[Steve West]

I could live with that.
I just see tail marking only happening at worlds or some other big tournament and making a big uproar. Ricky lands in front of a tree and cant get a legal stance behind the disc due to extra large feet. Has to move to the backside of a big 4 foot dia. tree and has no look. Paul had the same throw same place, owes Ricky a beer, but has smaller feet and fits behind the disc. His stance is tight to the tree without any real balance but has a clear view of the basket and drains long putt for a stroke lead. Note: I don't know what size feet they have

Ricky can put a finger there.

But, I think your hypothetical situation gives rise to the notion that perhaps the rule about relief from a large solid obstacle should come into play when the large solid obstacle is in the lie, instead of only when it prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc.

 

[SonicGuy]

I don't think the minimal movement of the thrown disc from marking the back of the disc would be a problem.

Strongly disagree. I already have a problem with the way a lot of people get a few inches to one side or the other with the current rules. Players already abuse a quick mini place and disc pull. With rear marking it would be almost entirely impossible to get it correct, much less police it when people fudge the mini placement.

It isn't rocket surgery. If you picked up your ball and then put the quarter on the green people would.think you were an idiot or cheating. Same here.

 

[Steve West]

Strongly disagree. I already have a problem with the way a lot of people get a few inches to one side or the other with the current rules. Players already abuse a quick mini place and disc pull. With rear marking it would be almost entirely impossible to get it correct, much less police it when people fudge the mini placement.

It isn't rocket surgery. If you picked up your ball and then put the quarter on the green people would.think you were an idiot or cheating. Same here.

I wasn't thinking that picking up the thrown disc, walking back to put it in the bag, getting a mini and walking back to somewhere around where the thrown disc was would be allowed.

If the thrown disc has to be on the ground when the mini is being placed, I don't see how it would be harder to police than the current method. The bigger point is that there would be a lot fewer mini placements to abuse. Why would anyone even mark anything, except to throw the thrown disc? Would there need to be a rule that if you mark it, you MUST use the thrown disc?

I guess I'll have to go do some field work to try marking the back of a thrown disc to see how hard it is. One-handed, so I don't need to set my bag down.

 

[krupicka]

Current rules dictate you place the mini in a certain manner and then remove the thrown disc. There is a simplicity and precision to it. The proposed doesn't dictate the method. Do you place the mini on top of the thrown disc, hold it place, slide out the thrown disc. Or do you pick-up/tilt/remove the thrown disc and then place the mini down? Or do place the mini upside down at the rear, remove the thrown disc, and then flip the mini? None of these have the same simple elegance of placing down the mini and picking up the thrown disc and some of them will require two hands (which is a problem for some players).

 

[Steve West]

Current rules dictate you place the mini in a certain manner and then remove the thrown disc. There is a simplicity and precision to it. The proposed doesn't dictate the method. Do you place the mini on top of the thrown disc, hold it place, slide out the thrown disc. Or do you pick-up/tilt/remove the thrown disc and then place the mini down? Or do place the mini upside down at the rear, remove the thrown disc, and then flip the mini? None of these have the same simple elegance of placing down the mini and picking up the thrown disc and some of them will require two hands (which is a problem for some players).

If you had to dictate the method, what would you say? What would be the simplest, most precise, possible-to-do-with-one-hand, way to mark the back of the thrown disc?

 

[Consult20]

If you had to dictate the method, what would you say? What would be the simplest, most precise, possible-to-do-with-one-hand, way to mark the back of the thrown disc?

How about marking the rear edge with something like a golf tee stuck in the ground. Then pick up the thrown disc, place the mini, and pick up the tee. For situations that don't allow that (solid surface), slide the mini underneath and then pick up the thrown disc and hope you don't move the mini.

Too much bs, just leave the marking rule as-is.

 

[biscoe]

How about marking the rear edge with something like a golf tee stuck in the ground. Then pick up the thrown disc, place the mini, and pick up the tee. For situations that don't allow that (solid surface), slide the mini underneath and then pick up the thrown disc and hope you don't move the mini.

Too much bs, just leave the marking rule as-is.

agreed. if change is needed for its own sake then go back to requiring marking the front with a mini. simple, consistent, stimulates mini sales.

 

[krupicka]

If you had to dictate the method, what would you say? What would be the simplest, most precise, possible-to-do-with-one-hand, way to mark the back of the thrown disc?

I don't see one and that is part of the problem. I understand the rationale for tail marking. But when it comes down to writing a clean rule for it, what I have seen so far seems like a step backward compared to the way the current (and previous) marking rules have been.

Does the gain justify the loss? I don't see allowing players the tactical choice on marking as being a problem. Sure the player's choice give two options, but we already have that when marking near OB. But the current options are a precise option, not a I'll put my mini down approximately where it should be option.

 

[Lazerface]

My thoughts after a peruse through the thread.

* Falling Putts at close range are a distinct advantage and there is no counter argument here.

*Putting is already "too" easy (subjective) so allowing falling putts from all ranges adds to that and would be bad for spectating (subjective). Putting is already the most uninteresting thing to see from a non disc golfer. Opposite in Ball Golf for obvious reasons.

*the notion of being forced to use the thrown disc as a marker and not have the ability to mark and utilize the same disc two throws in a row is ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

*I think the general luck factor in disc golf on where a disc comes to rest supersedes the idea of the possible advantage of choosing between marking and not marking. That is to say, since we have a large luck factor (trees around baskets, roots, etc) and require proper footing to execute a shot - it's a good thing the player has the option to "improve" the lie.

*not allowing follow through on fairway shots/drives is ridiculous for all the reasons pointed out in the thread - injury being the number one.

*The only proposal I would entertain would be adding some distance to the 10M circle. That is worth a conversation. People who don't see a "distinct advantage" with jump or step putting are wrong. It's really simple - using the momentum of the body allows you to keep your small muscle movements (wrist, elbow, fingers) more compact like you would do from a short putt. This allows for more consistency in the release for MOST golfers. Matt Dollar can sling it in spin style from 60 FT with no need for a jump/step, but he and others like Matt have something special (or just thousands of hours of practice). The majority of disc golfers WILL make more putts from long distance if they dial in there timing on step/jump putts. Ricky is a pitch putter, but like Matt he has a very rare ability to repeat the same motion with his legs and upper body which allows him to putt stuff in from 60+ with no follow through as well. He makes it look easy, but it's not. I would hate if the no follow through line became 60 feet as I don't have "that thing" as I describe above. It would be a major game changer and would shake up leaderboards like not other. Of course, Paul/Ricky/Matt and others would be OK as they both don't need follow through until they are way out. It may just mean that in order to be elite down the road you have to figure out how to spin it in like Matt/Paul, or Push it in like Ricky. Stepping/Jumping just seems way easier and takes less hours to get it down IMO, and I think that is true for most, which is why we see so much of it, especially at the top level of play.

 

[rhatton1]

There was and remains only one "benefit" to the change from 2002, and that is as Steve alludes, you don't have to bend down to place your mini on every lie if you don't want to. From a game play perspective, there really is nothing gained from not requiring the lie to be marked with a mini. It was a back-saving rule change and little more.

Not totally true, it also improves ( a little) speed of play which I believe is one of the main reasons for them discussing it. If there is no advantage to marking your lie with a mini (20- 22 cms closer to the basket) players are more likely to walk to their lie with a disc in hand ready to putt rather than mess around marking,walking back to their bag, picking up, drying a disc, walking back to their bag, choosing another disc, singing a little song, giving someone the eye for breathing as they are lining up their putt, finally making the 5' putt etc etc, (ok so maybe some of those will continue...) .

No. You have 30 cm behind the lie, and a disc is under 22. Plant your foot within 8 cm of the back of your disc.and you don't have to mark. Easy peasey.

How big is your foot? When you approach/fairway drive, your foot should pivot to release tension and stress on your knee in conjunction with the arm going forward, so the disc has not left the hand before the foot pivots (in good form). 8 cms means a footfault hitting the marker or going past every time. I'm pretty sure it's why Stokely got the famous call last year, his size 14's (around 35 cms) didn't pivot, they got stuck on a tuft of grass when normally they would have pivoted into a legal stance at release.

Why not eliminate the circle completely and simply allow people to follow through wherever they are, as long as they release within 30cm behind their lie on the LOP?

You want to jump putt, jump putt.
You want to stand and deliver, fine.
You like a conventional run-up and follow through, go for it.

Simple, easy to police, fair for everyone, no one gets a competitive advantage.

My suggestion would allow "falling putts," but is that really a competitive advantage?

I am all for this, I'll take the risk of someone doing a falling over slam dunk style putt giving themselves a 3.5 meter distance at best and injuring themselves in the process over a putt I would normally expect to make 100% of the time anyway. If someone wants to injure themselves let them do it, apart from in the most ridiculous of hurricanes it gives them no competitive advantage.

Outside of 10/15 meters step putts and jump putts are advantageous at the top level, inside of this range, they're really not, it adds a whole other level of unnecessary complexity in generating power that is not required. Run a few X tiers with top players and see how many would step/jump putt within 10. (you might get a few step putts within as it keeps everything on line so has a higher advantage than jumping which just adds oomph)

The one thing getting rid of the 10 meter circle doesn't stop though is the thing they are trying to change the rule for, putts that are borderline illegal as they stand. It's not about not moving in front of your lie, it's about not having any supporting point in contact ahead of your lie (with step putts) and having at least one supporting point in contact behind (with jump putts) getting rid of the circle doesn't get rid of either problems and the issue the rules committee are seeing, that there are so many borderline calls that are impossible to tell in realtime but actually show on video to be illegal. Stopping you following through does solve this issue, but IMO opinion is a worse medicine than the original problem.

 

[rhatton1]

I don't see one and that is part of the problem. I understand the rationale for tail marking. But when it comes down to writing a clean rule for it, what I have seen so far seems like a step backward compared to the way the current (and previous) marking rules have been.

I've just done this in the kitchen, it was so not hard I even made a video https://youtu.be/ltQJbczhjIM , rules committee please feel free to use it

Two handed is stupidly easy to get the mini in the right place

One handed, put foot behind mini on mark instead of holding it on with the off hand before sliding the disc out.

It's not hard and can be done easily with one hand just as quickly as marking the front edge.