krupicka
Double Eagle Member
There are different approaches to this, but the outcry will be that the sky is falling if the RC pushes any of them.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2022 USADGC
- Thread starter ChrisWoj
- Start date
BuzzzChief
Double Eagle Member
Yea, I saw the video they posted after he tied it up on 18. My immediate thought when I saw the clip was "oof, people are going to lose their minds over that step putt." Immediately it exploded with comments. Then they posted the winning playoff putt and it was just as bad.
Lots of garbage in the comments but the screenshots are pretty damning.
I don't really have a great idea for how the rule should change. But I don't think this should be OK.
Lots of garbage in the comments but the screenshots are pretty damning.
I don't really have a great idea for how the rule should change. But I don't think this should be OK.
Attachments
Marshals and officials should not be making calls on players.....ever. There is NO way to call the foul in real time. This is still a non issue. The resolution is simply no going beyond your lie. Everybody on board? 
opcorn:
opcorn:Why even bother having marshals and tournament officials (and why go to the trouble and expense of having them at events) if they are not making calls, particularly since even players who do make calls admit that they will defer to marshals/tournament officials to make calls if/when they are present?
So? If the PDGA is correct in its belief that tournament competition will continue to grow at a pace where demand outstrips supply, the whiners will either adapt to the new rule or quit (in which case, good riddance, and be careful the door hit your *** on the way out) and be replaced by new players who aren't trying to game the rules.
Everybody except the players who jump/step putt. :|Marshals and officials should not be making calls on players.....ever. There is NO way to call the foul in real time. This is still a non issue. The resolution is simply no going beyond your lie. Everybody on board?
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.
Marshals and officials should not be making calls on players.....ever. There is NO way to call the foul in real time. This is still a non issue. The resolution is simply no going beyond your lie. Everybody on board?
If it doesn't get called more players will putt this way, It could become a total mess.
I can't wait to see more " Elaine King moments", where players wait for a pivotal time in the tournament to call a foul.
This is not how the game works. Player violations are the responsibility of the player themselves and cardmates. Shifting the responsibility to others, is not resolving the problem. It is a rules violation to not call a foot fault. If an official makes the call, he then calls the entire card on a violation.
Marshals and officials are stewards of safety and responsible for competition manual enforcement. Player violations are on the players. Start calling violations.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 15,714
It looks HIGHLY suspect to me, but I can't say hed had a supporting point in front of his lie when he released. Complete agree with 3P here. If you can't tell when you slo-mo it, how can you possibly make the call at the time?
The rule is basically impossible to enforce in all but the most egregious cases.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 15,714
I'm not so sure about that. If players weren't allowed to go beyond their lie until they demonstrated balance (i.e. the rule within the circle simply because "The Rule" ...for the entire round)...
Wouldn't that preclude what most people do as a "follow through" on their long shots?
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.
And the problem with that is ...?
In an ideal world, yes, players would call violations. The reality on the ground is that self-officiating is NOT working and hasn't worked for decades: witness the fact that (A) once again there's controversy over the legality of a step/jump putt at a Major, and )B) a high profile pro who was serving on the PDGA board at the time stated openly that he would never call a foot fault on another player but would second a call if someone else made it.
Shifting the responsibility from players to marshals/TOs may not resolve the problem of players abdicating their responsibility to make calls, but empowering them to make calls at Majors and Pro Tour events can and will resolve the problem of at least some egregious violations not being called, particularly if the official levies courtesy violations on the rest of the card for failing to make the call themselves.
Agricolae
Eagle Member
When potential stance violations are too close to call the benefit almost always (always?) goes to the player and penalties are not assessed. What if that were turned around? What if when the card can't clearly see that a stance violation DID NOT occur, then "too close to call" would result in a penalty?
"I can't tell for sure that that was legal so it results in a penalty" vs. "I can't tell for sure that that was illegal so the benefit goes to the player." Card decides.
That would be a huge cultural shift and will never happen.
I don't think that 20 meters of C1 rules would be that hard to get used to where the circle(s) are not marked. Learn to pace it off. If it's close, the card decides whether to give the benefit or not. Pretty much the same way it is done now with a 10 meter C1. Carry a 20-meter piece of twine and a hook for the pole, carry a steel tape measure, if it matters that much to the thrower or the card.
"I can't tell for sure that that was legal so it results in a penalty" vs. "I can't tell for sure that that was illegal so the benefit goes to the player." Card decides.
That would be a huge cultural shift and will never happen.
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.
I don't think that 20 meters of C1 rules would be that hard to get used to where the circle(s) are not marked. Learn to pace it off. If it's close, the card decides whether to give the benefit or not. Pretty much the same way it is done now with a 10 meter C1. Carry a 20-meter piece of twine and a hook for the pole, carry a steel tape measure, if it matters that much to the thrower or the card.
Marshals and officials should not be making calls on players.....ever. There is NO way to call the foul in real time. This is still a non issue. The resolution is simply no going beyond your lie. Everybody on board?
You proposed one dumb idea and one great idea, and then asked if we are generally on board with your post.
In a 1-v-1 playoff scenario it makes TOTAL sense for a marshal or other official being capable of stepping in as the "third" to second any violations.
I officially feel safe saying youre not Harold Duvall.There are advocates of 100% stand and deliver that would outlaw going past your lie anywhere, but I'm not that crazy.
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.
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?
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*
grube.fresh
Par Member
There are countless sports that are self judging/referring. The dgpt is the crème of the crop. How they handle rule infractions will get better with time. I'm sure most of you have been to a youth sport event where parents or minimum wage referees are making calls. Nobody is trying to make a wrong decision, but it happens.
I think the thing missing here is how fast that happens and how hard it is to see.
Think about actual officials. Umpires, referees...these guys make calls for a living right? How do they do it? They get in position. They have training on what to be looking at and what to be listening for. When the play happens, they are in the right spot and looking at the right thing.
So when everyone approaches and people start to putt, where do you go? If you can get to your disc and be out of the line of sight, you go there. If you are going to be in the way, you stand behind the thrower. NOBODY is in position to make the call on a foot fault. Hell, I don't know where an official would stand and what they would watch. I've been a certified official, and I have no idea how to approach that situation in an umpire/referee mindset to make a call. I'm just a guy waiting on my turn to putt. Then something happens BANG/BANG...did the disc leave his hand before his foot hit the ground? Uh...I'm not sure, it happened really fast.
There is no fix to that in our current situation. You are always going to have people putting, and the responsibility to call them on rules violations in the hands of people who are not trained on what to look for, not in position to see what is happening and mostly thinking about what they have to do to sink their own putt. Those bang/bang things are not going to get called ever; no one in real time is going to be 100% confident in what they just saw.
If you stick an official on the card with the training to know where to stand and what to look for, and that guy makes a call? Great. Calling a courtesy violation on the players who are not trained and don't know where to stand and what to watch for because they didn't see it? That's pretty overboard.
Agree. I continue to say, it is a non issue. It is unenforceable currently and changing WHO makes the call is not pragmatic, in any sense.
