- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,783
Turns out he was putting with a P1-X.
-
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)
Ken Climo full on foot fault in the finals...
- Thread starter numbernine
- Start date
joshmo65
Eagle Member
McBeth's jump putt is super suspect as well.
The 2nd putt you can tell in real time. First one you can't see his feet, but it looks like he stops accelerating upwards before he lets go of his disc.
opcorn:
The 2nd putt you can tell in real time. First one you can't see his feet, but it looks like he stops accelerating upwards before he lets go of his disc.
opcorn:FTFY.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
That was a leap, I'm quite willing to call them. Instead, what I'm pointing out is that this issue is a constant. I've never gone through a period of more than a month or two before someone brings it up as a problem. In videos of the sport, we see foot faults continuously, even up to the highest level, and they simply aren't called. Oh, and by the way, that is in tournament play, and not in just in any tournament play, we see it very often in NTs and World events. Whoops! Perhaps we should be telling the Pros, who appear to be unwilling to make the call, or are missing it, that they should be sticking to non-sanctioned play?
The truth is that the funsies fantasy land is real world play, where some argue that the rule is actually called and works, when it is clear that it is not. I understand that some like the rule the way it is, but you can't argue that it is being called when we can go through a single video of one event and see several, when it isn't even the intent of the videographer to look for that violation.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Nice question. Know the answer from the PDGA already, but it does put the truth to the fiction that players are observing each other and can make the call.
Kenny is "the Champ" No way either of those 4 are going to call him on a foot fault, he knows it. And his complaints to a call would have frozen that group from calling him on anything else that round. Dont know if it was intentional, but he knows how to work the game, and it would be pretty genius to ask for a line so that he could foot fault then "argue." YOU said the line was ok (even though he didnt throw from that line.)
How often does someone spend 1 minute crawling into a bush, ask if he is ok, then everyone in the group that can't see just says "OK" because, hey I dont want to get over in that mess. All the time. Thats how often.
Phlick
Bogey Member
This rule is dumb. Either cite and enforce stand and deliver as a mandate for all non-tee shots, or re-write the rule to allow more real world application - as is currently allowed from tee shots. Imagine if all teepads were shaped like an arrow and you had to throw from the very tip of the point. Dumb right? So is this rule.
DiscLoser1
Birdie Member
What I find dumb is that people keep calling footfaults based on suspect video evidence.
Unless there are multiple HD camera angles in super slo-mo available, the single camera viewpoint can't be trusted to be an actual representation of what actually happened.
Distance from the player, angle of the camera, amount of zoom used, inability to see the target, etc all make internet footfaults a useless exercise.
Climo appears to have faulted; no way to tell on video.
Unless there are multiple HD camera angles in super slo-mo available, the single camera viewpoint can't be trusted to be an actual representation of what actually happened.
Distance from the player, angle of the camera, amount of zoom used, inability to see the target, etc all make internet footfaults a useless exercise.
Climo appears to have faulted; no way to tell on video.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
This is a great point. If it was the only observation then we could drop the topic, permanently.
As far as this discussion goes, maybe the Champ should give up his championships in light of this unforgivable offense? Yes, I'm joking...
Maybe not the time or place, but this whole discussion highlights one of the biggest reasons that disc golf will never require quite the same precision as ball golf. That ball comes to rest at a certain location and must be struck/launched from the same location. Even WITHOUT a foot fault, disc golf allows a tremendous amount of flexibility for getting around obstacles. Assuming I have a decent FH/BH/OH game, I have 6 feet to either side and 8 feet vertically from which to release my disc.
Add to that the potential variations in flight path, and you can see why course design in disc golf is extremely different from (and likely more difficult than) ball golf course design.
Maybe not the time or place, but this whole discussion highlights one of the biggest reasons that disc golf will never require quite the same precision as ball golf. That ball comes to rest at a certain location and must be struck/launched from the same location. Even WITHOUT a foot fault, disc golf allows a tremendous amount of flexibility for getting around obstacles. Assuming I have a decent FH/BH/OH game, I have 6 feet to either side and 8 feet vertically from which to release my disc.
Add to that the potential variations in flight path, and you can see why course design in disc golf is extremely different from (and likely more difficult than) ball golf course design.
This thread is starting to make me question my stance (no pun intended), on requiring standstill shots. I still lean towards allowing run ups, but this makes me step back and think.
Atvizory2000
Par Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 208
I believe with courses becoming longer, they have to keep the run up in the rules. A lot of these holes require 2 full drives for us AM players!
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
On the other hand, if you made Stand and Deliver the rule, you could redevelop courses to be shorter, thus requiring less space, less maintenance, and lower overall costs and effort.
Courses have gotten longer to accommodate the game. If the rules change, courses will change to fit the rules.
All of that aside, the stand and deliver throw isn't significantly shorter than the run up throw on most shots. Yep, on wide open fairways where you can boom it out there, you gain some, but honestly, those are the least important holes in the game. Fun to watch, but not the holes that separate the Pro from the Am.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
But wouldn't that be the point? I good course designer would look at reach, throwing styles, and skill in developing a given hole with it's challenges. That is what makes our sport better than ball golf. That lie behind or in a tree in ball golf leaves you there. In our sport, a skilled player looks at that as a challenge, what shot in my bag do I have, with a legal stance, that solves this problem?
Honestly, by my view, only a few designers actually think this way, but that is on the rise and is simply a matter of maturity of the sport. Likewise, as the sport grows and codifies it's rules, a good designer would look at options and say, "with a run up, this can be done, but with stand and deliver, this can be done."
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
In a general sense it should be noted that while it is fun to discuss this topic, at least for me, practically speaking, the likelihood of a change is very small. To affect a change it would require that the leadership in the PDGA acknowledge that the way it's been done, and argued for, for thirty years is wrong. My experience is that people, and especially, organizations, rarely have the skill of admitting to being wrong. Especially in a case where a significant number of members support the position. The rule is faulty, it isn't horrific, but it does allow for abuse. Of course when you can only find one possible case that can be seen with any detail in thirty years, well, you're not going far.
How much impact does a foot fault on an open field throw have, in actuality, it's significant. Making a throw, and making a throw where you have to get your foot right, and then throw the disc, are very different throws. Few look at it that way. The approach taken is, the change in angle from a misstep on a run up is so small as to be negligible, and therefore imparts no real advantage. That is correct, but misleading.
Changing the rule would solve a problem, it would put all players on a more equal footing, it would stop the silly notion that some players purposefully misstep to gain an advantage (with the exception of course of the step putt), and it would normalize the sport for prime time television, in the event that ever happens. Getting it done, not so much.
How much impact does a foot fault on an open field throw have, in actuality, it's significant. Making a throw, and making a throw where you have to get your foot right, and then throw the disc, are very different throws. Few look at it that way. The approach taken is, the change in angle from a misstep on a run up is so small as to be negligible, and therefore imparts no real advantage. That is correct, but misleading.
Changing the rule would solve a problem, it would put all players on a more equal footing, it would stop the silly notion that some players purposefully misstep to gain an advantage (with the exception of course of the step putt), and it would normalize the sport for prime time television, in the event that ever happens. Getting it done, not so much.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,853
One obstacle is getting a definition of stand and deliver that is less prone to misinterpretation or cheating than the current stance rule.
The best idea I've seen is that you have to have a supporting point in contact with the lie for two seconds before releasing the disc.
The best idea I've seen is that you have to have a supporting point in contact with the lie for two seconds before releasing the disc.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
I've advocated the deliver and stay approach where the supporting point remains in contact with the lie until balance is demonstrated. This allows various approaches into the lie, but keeps the foot there for verification. It also disallows step and jump putts. Keeps the rule simple (minimal change to current wording), but disallowing jump putts is like a third rail for many.
Similar threads
