2022 USADGC

[ChrisWoj]

I'm somewhat alarmed that it was ever in question. I mean, he was the guy who was a big fan of using a Wolf for rollers. Despite everything he had done for disc golf, that one fact makes him my mortal enemy. :|

*hating the Wolf since the Wolf has been a thing*

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[robdeforge]

Everybody except the players who jump/step putt. :|

But like Mike pointed out, the RC is damned if they do/damned if they don't. If they say "you can't call this" and outlaw going past your lie, the players (who are actually making money now) are going to have a fit. If the RC does nothing, this will happen again, and again, and again...each time to much Internet outrage.

Really you probably get back to just extending C1 for Majors/DGPT events so that when this stuff happens, it's at your local league or a B Tier in Poughkeepsie. Extending C1 will still make touring players mad, but it will greatly reduce the risk that this sort of thing happens at say Worlds.

I don't really have a great idea for how the rule should change. But I don't think this should be OK.

it seems to me that adding the bold section to the existing rules would clearly make a step putt like this easy to be called as breaking the rules and still allow for follow throughs on fairway shots.

"If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have no feet closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds."

 

[biscoe]

it seems to me that adding the bold section to the existing rules would clearly make a step putt like this easy to be called as breaking the rules and still allow for follow throughs on fairway shots.

"If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have no feet closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds."

Unless I am misunderstanding something the bolded may be even harder to judge than the current rule. You would have to be at the exact correct angle to have any hope of judging it correctly. (See countless football goal line replays.)

 

[ru4por]

it seems to me that adding the bold section to the existing rules would clearly make a step putt like this easy to be called as breaking the rules and still allow for follow throughs on fairway shots.

"If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have no feet closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds."

I think this still fails on the ideas that 3P has been stating. It comes down to two issues to me.

-It is impossible to determine if a violation has occurred. Even with frame by frame slow mo, it is nearly impossible. Even the above is not enforceable, IMO.

-Players do not care about foot faults on jump/step putts.

 

[robdeforge]

Unless I am misunderstanding something the bolded may be even harder to judge than the current rule. You would have to be at the exact correct angle to have any hope of judging it correctly. (See countless football goal line replays.)

I think this still fails on the ideas that 3P has been stating. It comes down to two issues to me.

-It is impossible to determine if a violation has occurred. Even with frame by frame slow mo, it is nearly impossible. Even the above is not enforceable, IMO.

-Players do not care about foot faults on jump/step putts.

step putts like the attached would clearly break the rule. it would also disallow the standing crane style of throwing where a player has a foot as a supporting point on the playing surface in front of the lie before the disc is released, but the supporting point is lifted before the disc is released

 

[Rastnav]

step putts like the attached would clearly break the rule. it would also disallow the standing crane style of throwing where a player has a foot as a supporting point on the playing surface in front of the lie before the disc is released, but the supporting point is lifted before the disc is released

So, you actually don't actually care whether borderline rules violations occur, you only care that step putts be eliminated. That's a reasonable preference, but don't hide behind the idea that you just really don't like borderline situations where it's hard to call a rule violation (See also: jump putts, touching the lie on run-up.). Because "no feet (supporting point) in the air past the lie" is going to result in some impossible to call border line situations.

You also run into the issue where you are now specifically calling out feet as special supporting points. It's not clear to me what the possible downstream effects of this would be. There are also scramble situations which would become illegal, where it would be even harder to determine something like this, as the lie is frequently more obscured.

I, personally, would rather like to see the rules change to include a specific personal responsibility for players to call violations on themselves, and to make all good faith effort to abide by the rules, an honor code if you will. I think many players play this way, but I don't think it necessarily permeates the spirt of the rules at this time.

 

[robdeforge]

So, you actually don't actually care whether borderline rules violations occur, you only care that step putts be eliminated. That's a reasonable preference, but don't hide behind the idea that you just really don't like borderline situations where it's hard to call a rule violation (See also: jump putts, touching the lie on run-up.). Because "no feet (supporting point) in the air past the lie" is going to result in some impossible to call border line situations.

You also run into the issue where you are now specifically calling out feet as special supporting points. It's not clear to me what the possible downstream effects of this would be. There are also scramble situations which would become illegal, where it would be even harder to determine something like this, as the lie is frequently more obscured.

yup I specifically am trying to eliminate step putts with this targeted rule change. I really don't think that it would be as hard to make calls based on this addition to the rulebook - 99.99% of throws will not even be close to violating it, and most of the times it will simply be the supporting point being closer to the target that is more easily observed.

I really don't see the problems that it will cause enforcement-wise in other scenarios. if you can show me a specific example or two of what you are thinking of that will be hard to call with this proposed rule change I would love to see them

I, personally, would rather like to see the rules change to include a specific personal responsibility for players to call violations on themselves, and to make all good faith effort to abide by the rules, an honor code if you will. I think many players play this way, but I don't think it necessarily permeates the spirt of the rules at this time.

I have no faith in disc golfers self policing themselves in this way, but maybe I'm just being too cynical

 

[coupe]

Sigh.....So I now need to find another dozen or so volunteers at each of the 8 tournaments we put on each season. Simply to remedy player disinterest in calling violations, per the rules. We struggle to get enough help to organize each event, set up, clean the course, paint circles, run the event and tear down. The issue simply does not warrant a total revamp of a primary principle of the game.

You're already attempting to revamp a primary principle of the game (fairness) by prohibiting TOs*from making calls. Furthermore, calling rules violations is NOT the exclusive domain of players:

801.02 Enforcement

F. A Tournament Official, or Official, is a person who is authorized by the Director to make judgments regarding the proper application of the rules during play. An Official may call or confirm a rule violation by any player. An Official's call does not need to be confirmed to be enforced. An Official who is playing may not act as an Official for players who are in their division.

Given the persistent, demonstrable refusal of players on all levels to call rule violations and the significant financial reward, at least at the Major and Pro Tour level, for getting away with violating rules, it's high time that the PDGA start addressing that refusal.

Having marshals and TOs call violations and assess courtesy violations on players who refuse to call them at the events they are already currently present (i.e., Majors and Pro Tour) sets the expectation that calling violations is the norm rather than the exception. The salutary effect of players at the top level getting on board with the new norm, even if only to avoid penalty strokes for multiple courtesy violation, on consumers of tournament coverage of those events should not be underestimated.

I think if the rules are important enough to the players, they will follow them. If none of them are interested in following them, why are we discussing this? To sate the outrage of facebook?

The fact that this, and similar incidents at other events, IS being discussed demonstrates that some players DO care about rules enforcement and fair play rather than winning by cutting corners.

The problem with the "if the rules are important enough to the players, they will follow them" attitude is that there is no meaningful consequence to NOT "following the rules" (i.e., calling violations) and there are meaningful consequences (payout, focus, sponsorship level, etc.) to "not following the rules," as well as a deeply entrenched culture of hostility toward players when they DO call a violation (see, e.g., the **** storm directed at Climo's stance violation call on Stokely (2015 Worlds), McBeth's call on Simon (2015 Australian Open), or Nikko's call on GG (2013 HOF Classic)).

 

[Rastnav]

yup I specifically am trying to eliminate step putts with this targeted rule change. I really don't think that it would be as hard to make calls based on this addition to the rulebook - 99.99% of throws will not even be close to violating it, and most of the times it will simply be the supporting point being closer to the target that is more easily observed.

I really don't see the problems that it will cause enforcement-wise in other scenarios. if you can show me a specific example or two of what you are thinking of that will be hard to call with this proposed rule change I would love to see them

This is the classic issue where you assume only that players will stop doing things that they currently do (which you do not like) and only switch to other things that are currently done.

You don't consider that players who want to get momentum toward the target on a putt will change to do something else, that no one does currently (because you wouldn't need to under existing rules). For example, a straddle-style putt where you push forward into a single step, intending to release before your forward moving foot goes past the lie. IIRC, Paige Pierce does something similar to this now on certain putts.

Why might they do this? Because they are trying to get maximize their bodies momentum in-line with their arm at the moment of release. Look at Paul McBeth's jump putts for an example of pushing forward sideways into the line of the putt.

I have no faith in disc golfers self policing themselves in this way, but maybe I'm just being too cynical

I have faith that the highest-level pro-scene could embrace this, and if they did, that would make an impact on the culture of MPO, FPO, and, FA1 and MA1 overall. Sure A3, even A2, is always going to be a mixed bag, but those cards can't be relied on to know where OB is or what the rules for casual relief are, or sometimes even what constitutes a lie, frequently substituting what "seems like it would be right" for anything approaching the actual rules.

And I don't think it would be some sort of overnight change, it would be a slow impact over time.

 

[robdeforge]

You don't consider that players who want to get momentum toward the target on a putt will change to do something else, that no one does currently (because you wouldn't need to under existing rules). For example, a straddle-style putt where you push forward into a single step, intending to release before your forward moving foot goes past the lie. IIRC, Paige Pierce does something similar to this now on certain putts.

It's not that I don't consider it, it's that I literally can't think of how people would "get around" this rule change to do something that would be as difficult to call as step putts currently are. and I don't understand your example other than to say that would probably still be allowed as it wouldn't clearly be a rules violation (as far as I understand what you're saying)

 

[ejvogie]

I officially feel safe saying you're not Harold Duvall.

...or John Brooks

Oh, I didn't mean make everything C1 rules. The idea was to move C1 from 10 Meters to 20 Meters, basically make everything that is now a C2 putt follow the current C1 rules. You could still jump/step putt, but now you are 65' instead of 32' and your chances are significantly slimmer. So the rules outside C2 wouldn't change; you could follow through on drive and such. There are advocates of 100% stand and deliver that would outlaw going past your lie anywhere, but I'm not that crazy.

Making C1 20 meters is something that practically would be hard to do for leagues and local play (65' is a looong way to be eyeballing a distance from) but you could to it for big events where they could mark a circle. That would keep a controversial jump/step putt from deciding an event that has a lot of eyes on it. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it's...something.

Someone (Big Jerm?) suggested a 15M C1 and a 30M C2. Thoughts?

 

[Three Putt]

...or John Brooks



Someone (Big Jerm?) suggested a 15M C1 and a 30M C2. Thoughts?

For the pro tour? Cool, whatever they want to do. 15M is essentially 50', so that would work I would think.

C2 is entirely a function of the pro tour, isn't it? I mean it's just a statistical designation so far as I understand. The rules don't change if you are inside or outside C2 that I know of. So C2 can be anything; it really has no effect on me.

As an actual PDGA rules change? I can probably get behind 15M if the rule was extended that far. I'd just have to figure out new landmarks around all the local baskets, so whatever.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Someone (Big Jerm?) suggested a 15M C1 and a 30M C2. Thoughts?

For the pro tour? Cool, whatever they want to do. 15M is essentially 50', so that would work I would think.

C2 is entirely a function of the pro tour, isn't it? I mean it's just a statistical designation so far as I understand. The rules don't change if you are inside or outside C2 that I know of. So C2 can be anything; it really has no effect on me.

As an actual PDGA rules change? I can probably get behind 15M if the rule was extended that far. I'd just have to figure out new landmarks around all the local baskets, so whatever.

My big concern with 15m is the difficulty on wooded courses establishing the line. I think the whole rule needs to be changed. Thats it. The way we define a legal or illegal putt outside 10m needs a *total* overhaul. There's a chance that the best option MIGHT be to make it more lenient.

How about...

"When the motion of the putt begins, no supporting points may be beyond the lie."

Maybe eliminate running starts and leaps to the chains with something like:

"The player must establish his footing and demonstrate balance in the stance before beginning the motion of the putt."


This is all pretty out there, and would be a huge change for the way putts look visually outside of 10m and would make putting easier. But... maybe worth something this drastic (if not actually this, I'm open to other suggestions) to eliminate the sheer fact of these debates having to happen so often.

EDIT: ARGH. I just realized that what I suggested becomes problematic unless you're a stand-and-deliver proponent. BAH. But still - lets have ideas!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Eliminate 10m rule. Mark with 30cm/12" bar (a triangular ruler or a collapsed Kwik-Stik could be used?) to provide visual marking reference and widen lie to 30cm. Require that putt be thrown while all supporting points, normally both feet, are behind their mark. Allow players to start their throw from behind their 30x30cm lie but any supporting points landing immediately after release must land behind their mark with at least one of them landing on their lie after releasing their step or jump throw (with follow thru still allowed past their mark).

Essentially, turn the marker bar into our equivalent of a bowling foul line but you are allowed to touch or land on the bar during the throw follow-thru (although not advisable for your own safety).

 

[ChrisWoj]

Eliminate 10m rule. Mark with 30cm/12" bar (a triangular ruler or a collapsed Kwik-Stik could be used?) to provide visual marking reference and widen lie to 30cm. Require that putt be thrown while all supporting points, normally both feet, are behind their mark. Allow players to start their throw from behind their 30x30cm lie but any supporting points landing immediately after release must land behind their mark with at least one of them landing on their lie after releasing their step or jump throw (with follow thru still allowed past their mark).

Essentially, turn the marker bar into our equivalent of a bowling foul line but you are allowed to touch or land on the bar during the throw follow-thru (although not advisable for your own safety).

So this is effectively a move toward something closer to stand and deliver on approach shots, yes? You can run up, but your follow through, if long, must come all the way around to a landing behind the lie?

It IS interesting to me in that it COULD serve to improve the shots of some players who have issues with maintaining a consistent follow through (someone who knows form nuance better than me might tell me I'm totally wrong, if so go ahead and do so please).

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I love nailing a 40' step putt, and I do it legally. It's fun!

If you can't tell without stopping a video frame by frame, then it's good enough in my book. Congratulations on the good putt.
If it's egregious enough to be seen clearly in real time, then by all means, the cardmates should call it and second it. They didn't, so it was good enough. End of story.

Why should I have to give up this super fun aspect of the game? I do it right. Putting is ALL I have going for me anymore, dagnabbit!!

 

[Cgkdisc]

So this is effectively a move toward something closer to stand and deliver on approach shots, yes? You can run up, but your follow through, if long, must come all the way around to a landing behind the lie?

It IS interesting to me in that it COULD serve to improve the shots of some players who have issues with maintaining a consistent follow through (someone who knows form nuance better than me might tell me I'm totally wrong, if so go ahead and do so please).

No stand and deliver required. You just have to contact your lie upon (like now) or after release with your first step during run/follow-thru.

 

[Steve West]

No stand and deliver required. You just have to contact your lie upon (like now) or after release with your first step during run/follow-thru.

So a running putt would still be legal, but with the lie being (optionally) under a different step?

 

[aredoubles]

Has there ever been an X-tier, where players were only allowed to standstill-and-deliver for all throws, no run-ups allowed anywhere? I wonder how that would go. I could see myself enjoying the challenge, and the 'purity' of it.

 

[ChrisWoj]

No stand and deliver required. You just have to contact your lie upon (like now) or after release with your first step during run/follow-thru.

Oh I understand no S&D required, thats why I said:

effectively a move toward something closer to stand and deliver on approach shots

When the balance and coordination of the players is considered, it stands to reason that many players will be moving slower/less on their approach to the lie during the shot because they need to make sure that they land their follow leg behind the lie in the end.

Assuming I understand your proposal correctly.