Foot Faults at World by Stokely

[runningDoc]

That's a little shifty. Whether it's a mini or a driver, the lie is still the same. It's a line, and a line (as we all remember from 9th grade geometry) has no width. Using a larger disc because it creates an "optical illusion" is trying to fool your cardmates into letting you circumvent the rules.

nah its more like wearing elastic waist pants at Thanksgiving dinner/Buffets so you have more leeway to eat moar foooood!

 

[BionicRib]

We're not gonna protest!....Stand and deliver!...stand and deliver!...stand and deliver!...change the rule!....change the rule!.....

Gutter is a tool!

 

[charris414]

Lawrence (yes I know your real name) ...

I've watched this vid now five times. As the lead in says, and as both PB and Ken say, it's not being in line with the basket that's in question with the first call. It's being close enough behind the mini to be a legal stance. If it was the former, it's possible that Scott was not in line with the basket and it was a foot fault (and my telling you to always play the disc for a run-up second shot would be reasonably correct). But seeing as how they're clearing stating the later, it's borderline to both let it go and/or to call him on it.

That said, my $0.02 worth is that the second throw is probably good, and that call was possibly unwarranted. However, the counter-point is that Scott very clearly planted his foot within the required distance on the third throw.

Tough situation on both sides.

 

[runningDoc]

Lawrence (yes I know your real name) ...

I've watched this vid now five times. As the lead in says, and as both PB and Ken say, it's not being in line with the basket that's in question with the first call. It's being close enough behind the mini to be a legal stance. If it was the former, it's possible that Scott was not in line with the basket and it was a foot fault (and my telling you to always play the disc for a run-up second shot would be reasonably correct). But seeing as how they're clearing stating the later, it's borderline to both let it go and/or to call him on it.

That said, my $0.02 worth is that the second throw is probably good, and that call was possibly unwarranted. However, the counter-point is that Scott very clearly planted his foot within the required distance on the third throw.

Tough situation on both sides.

I blame you for making me into a "kinda shifty" player .

 

[charris414]

damn ... now that's cold-hearted ... didn't I just tell you to always do the patent pending from your toes so that you don't lift your heel and do exactly what Stokeley is doing in this video?

 

[BrotherDave]

Incorrect. You get to throw on a straight line from the center of your lie to the pin.

And they never claimed he was left or right of his lie, so that's almost not worth discussing. Being right about a foot fault but for the wrong reasons mean they had no license to call it in the first place.

You say "don't quote me on this" which indicates that you aren't sure you're correct, but then you go ahead and say it anyway? What does that add to the discussion?

And you're 100% incorrect. You do not get the width of either a disc or a mini. Some portion of one of your supporting points has to be making contact with the dotted line below, within 30 cm directly behind your disc.

This has been the rule in the book for decades now (since the 1990 revision).

I'm more like 99% wrong in that it isn't specific in the rulebook. The LoP is "an imaginary line" and a line has no discernable thickness so it's too open for interpratation. Like guy said above me, if you leave your thrown disc down to establish your lie you are less likely to be called for a foot fault because the LoP looks "bigger." If you you interpret the rules the way yall do then it would make it virtually impossible for a wheelchair bound player to establish a legal stance.

 

[runningDoc]

I'm more like 99% wrong in that it isn't specific in the rulebook. The LoP is "an imaginary line" and a line has no discernable thickness so it's too open for interpratation. Like guy said above me, if you leave your thrown disc down to establish your lie you are less likely to be called for a foot fault because the LoP looks "bigger." If you you interpret the rules the way yall do then it would make it virtually impossible for a wheelchair bound player to establish a legal stance.

Yes! That's two my team, maybe I'm not "semi shifty" after all :thmbup:

I'm so confused too. When the thread started I assumed Stokely foot faulted, then he didn't, then it was a conspiracy/innova collusion, then he didn't foot fault, then he moved on.

 

[AndyJB]

This is why I always place my mini behind my disc (which is, of course, allowed by PDGA rules.) It gives me something bigger to spot when I'm doing a run up, and I hit the mark behind my mini everytime. Rules gurus can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule saying you have to move your disc once your mini is placed.

And yes, I've played against rules sticklers who will eagerly call out foot faults and the like. They aren't wrong to do so. I feel it's more a waste of time than anything else, and tournament rounds already take a very long time.

 

[Kodachrome]

KODA, what fb page was this discussion?
Thanks

He took it down. It was on his page originally.

 

[treehorn]

^This. I posted in the Worlds thread on this topic, but let me sum up:

PDGA completely dropped the ball at Worlds, at different ends of the spectrum.

We will hold up play for late players IF the player is the leader and suffered what is considered enough of a tragic circumstance. Paige and other players wanting to wait are obviously being Courteous and showing Sportsmanship. If Cat or anyone wanted to play on and not wait, the rules support them.

And (according to Stokely) Rules Officials will call foot faults/give warnings on players without being asked or addressed on the ruling, then announce their impartiality on previously called infractions. This is more egregious than PB and KC waiting until the final round to start calling repeated/multiple foot faults, though the rules support them as well. Gamesmanship is one thing, and certainly a legal tactic, but is the complete opposite of Sportsmanship.

^^ This ^^ :thmbup:

 

[mcthumber]

I'm more like 99% wrong in that it isn't specific in the rulebook. The LoP is "an imaginary line" and a line has no discernable thickness so it's too open for interpratation. Like guy said above me, if you leave your thrown disc down to establish your lie you are less likely to be called for a foot fault because the LoP looks "bigger." If you you interpret the rules the way yall do then it would make it virtually impossible for a wheelchair bound player to establish a legal stance.

So if I imagine the line is 6 feet wide, can I stand 3 feet to the side of my mini? This will help me out of many tough lies. Thanks!!

 

[kpc2004]

Can someone with knowledge of the course this occurred on indicate the basket location on a still shot of one of the throws which resulted in an infraction?

 

[bhadella]

This is why I always place my mini behind my disc (which is, of course, allowed by PDGA rules.) It gives me something bigger to spot when I'm doing a run up, and I hit the mark behind my mini everytime. Rules gurus can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule saying you have to move your disc once your mini is placed.

And yes, I've played against rules sticklers who will eagerly call out foot faults and the like. They aren't wrong to do so. I feel it's more a waste of time than anything else, and tournament rounds already take a very long time.

Actually, the mini is to be placed in front of the disc.

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/802-basic-rules-of-play/80203-marking-lie

What's the point of placing the mini down if you are leaving your disc in place?

 

[JC17393]

I'm more like 99% wrong in that it isn't specific in the rulebook. The LoP is "an imaginary line" and a line has no discernable thickness so it's too open for interpratation. Like guy said above me, if you leave your thrown disc down to establish your lie you are less likely to be called for a foot fault because the LoP looks "bigger." If you you interpret the rules the way yall do then it would make it virtually impossible for a wheelchair bound player to establish a legal stance.

The line has no discernible thickness, that is true. And because that is true, it is also true that the line isn't as thick as the width of the disc. That's the point here...the width of the marker, whether it is the mini or the thrown disc, is irrelevant to determining the lie and proper supporting placement on the lie.

In the graphic below, the two stances on the left are not legal, the two stances on the right are. Contact with that the line of play of indiscernible thickness represented by the dotted line is essential.

 

[Hampstead]

Can someone with knowledge of the course this occurred on indicate the basket location on a still shot of one of the throws which resulted in an infraction?

The calls were about distance behind his mini, so while knowledge of basket location could be helpful, it's not relevant to the infraction.

 

[rhatton1]

This is why I always place my mini behind my disc (which is, of course, allowed by PDGA rules.) It gives me something bigger to spot when I'm doing a run up, and I hit the mark behind my mini everytime. Rules gurus can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain there's no rule saying you have to move your disc once your mini is placed.

And yes, I've played against rules sticklers who will eagerly call out foot faults and the like. They aren't wrong to do so. I feel it's more a waste of time than anything else, and tournament rounds already take a very long time.

Rule Marking the lie - B http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/802-basic-rules-of-play/80203-marking-lie
Mini must be at the front of the thrown disc.

 

[Dr.Smooth]

Sorry that I must post again. I think this horse is dead so to speak. But in terms of rules and competition. Their is a philosophy to follow here during competition.

Rules are set up to try to allow for fair competition-right. And also according to how the game is suppose to be played.

So how is it if I am four hundred plus feet away that I am gaining a margin on my competitor with some footwork that looks a bit sloppy.

I don't see it. Not from that distance. From 32 feet and in totally a measurable amount of margin is gained. And therefore it is unfair.

Their has to be some leeway when your out that far from the pin in high grass. It is in the spirit of the law/rule not against it.

 

[rhatton1]

The calls were about distance behind his mini, so while knowledge of basket location could be helpful, it's not relevant to the infraction.

Actually the more I look at it the more it could be, and I may have to revise earlier opinions, certainly coloured by the original viewing.

A lot of this depends on your idea of where the line of play is. Stokely has feet at least 30 cms long (possibly longer). If he plants his heel at 29 cms from the mini, but slightly to the right/left of the line of play but has his foot at angle almost pointed away from the line of play (which he does) the toe of his shoe could almost be the 2' away that is shouted in the video, despite looking a lot closer. He doesn't get any form of heel/toe rotation as the disc leaves his hand so all of the foot could effectively be the supporting point at the point of release. If it is the ball of his foot that is on the line of play, it would almost be 2' behind the lie. JC's diagram above shows how this could easily be the caseif you imagine a foot with heel next to the back line but not on line of play and the toe on it but much further away.

I still think the entire thing looks way to close to make a call on, and doubt I would have done personally, but the line of play and the perspective of the viewer (to the right of both camera angles we've seen) would/could have a dramatic difference.

 

[JC17393]

Sorry that I must post again. I think this horse is dead so to speak. But in terms of rules and competition. Their is a philosophy to follow here during competition.

Rules are set up to try to allow for fair competition-right. And also according to how the game is suppose to be played.

So how is it if I am four hundred plus feet away that I am gaining a margin on my competitor with some footwork that is looks bit sloppy. I would say ok you made a reasonable effort to do it right.

I don't see it. Not from that distance. From 32 feet and in totally a measurable amount of margin is gained. And therefore it is unfair.

Their has to be some leeway when your out that far from the pin in high grass. It is in the spirit of the law/rule not against it.

Where do you read what the "spirit of the rule" is, anyway? How far away from the target does the throw need to be to allow this "spirit of the rule" leeway? 200 feet? 300 feet? 500 feet? Does the leeway get greater as we get further from the target? You know, zero leeway at 32 feet, but 6 inches of lee way at 250 feet and a foot and a half at 400 feet?

If the rule was intended to have leeway built in, it should say so. Otherwise the "spirit of the rule" should be, you know, what the rule actually says. Black and white, no alternatives.

 

[Pbmercil]

Sorry that I must post again. I think this horse is dead so to speak. But in terms of rules and competition. Their is a philosophy to follow here during competition.

Rules are set up to try to allow for fair competition-right. And also according to how the game is suppose to be played.

So how is it if I am four hundred plus feet away that I am gaining a margin on my competitor with some footwork that looks a bit sloppy.

I don't see it. Not from that distance. From 32 feet and in totally a measurable amount of margin is gained. And therefore it is unfair.

Their has to be some leeway when your out that far from the pin in high grass. It is in the spirit of the law/rule not against it.

This attitude creates a huge problem, as perfectly evidenced by the Stokely situation. You have one camp that calls it like they see it according to the rulebook. The other camp sees violations all the time and says "eh whatever. No biggie. Not even worth mentioning". Then when somebody who is only used to dealing with the second camp, runs into the first, conflict is inevitable.

Only one group is actually following the rules