Ken Climo full on foot fault in the finals...

[bhadella]

If only Kenny had a forehand for those kind of shots......

 

[Craig639]

Ken had several foot faults on video from this tourney alone.

 

[SirWalter]

I don't think this instance was a foot fault. He was not past the Mando yet which means his line of play is the Mando not the basket, so if his foot is to the back right of the disc which it looks like to me then I would say it is a legal shot.

 

[DatRedDude]

He has been doing this for a really long time. He could hit his mark in his sleep. Karma got him back with a roll away O.B. on the last hole anyways so all is right in the frolf universe.

 

[wkelly42]

I was irritated with Kenny anyway over his arguing about someone else getting the two meters from any barbed wire rule - which he himself benefited from earlier in that round (I think it was round 2, but I could be wrong). That seemed like a bigger jerk move than anything else.

 

[araytx]

Dave Greenwell got called for a foot fault from the tee.

Warning and re-throw.

He aced the re-throw.

True story.

But did he get called for any other foot faults the rest of the round? The feeling that "you're giving them a free re-throw if you call it" bugs me – because it's not FREE. Just like a delay of game warning in basketball, the next occurrence/violation is a penalty. Add to that the fact that the call should be made promptly, then any argument about the outcome of the throw is moot if called properly.

You are conflating speeding with foot faults.... annnnnd, they aren't equivalent. That said, a lawyer viewing our sport as a gambling enterprise - you're betting your money against his - might disagree with you. She might just demand parity and assurance that all things are equal so as to ensure that the bet isn't rigged. Since you can't assure that, you have a problem. In a gambling situation, that taint fair, the odds have been pushed towards the guy who didn't get called.

I understand that it isn't a dilemma for you, but I wasn't measuring against you, I was measuring against the law. The law looks at gaming ventures and sports differently than they do other things. Now, we're smaller than the big sports, so we are getting away with it, but if we were a big sport, with lots o money at stake, they'd take notice.

You're the only one conflating speeding with foot faults because you fail, either through real or feigned ignorance, to grasp the nature of an analogy.
…
Refusal to do so is a courtesy violation 804.01.D, which, coupled with your earlier courtesy warning for failure to watch other members of the group to ensure compliance with the rules (801.04.C), earns you a penalty stroke.

[Insert Stuart Scott's famous catch phrase here]

...
Two questions for the forum:
1) Is a player allowed to call his own fault, lest a re-throw provide him an opportunity to make a better shot?
2) Does the fact that he is THE CHAMP make any of you a little more hesitant about calling him on a violation (or perhaps make Terry or the other players hesitant about mentioning it)? I call plenty of co-competitors (more than I ever see anybody else, anyway), but I stopped doing it this weekend (playing in open) when it's clear that a player is out of the running for cash, etc. I know I should still call every violation I see, because it is still effecting the scoring and ratings distributions, but I don't want to seen as the tournament snitch/whatever. If I ever played a big tournament, then I might be even more hesitant to call a touring pro on a fault.

1) No, but that's a change from a couple years ago. Still a debated one. Seems there was a belief that players were using the self-called ffault for that sinister purpose, rather than the bolf standard of calling violations on oneself if you made a mistake.
2) Not at all. Stated my position earlier. If the governor or president or Jordan Speith or Scott Kelley are speeding on a highway should they be stopped? [rhet.]

Good point. With stand-and-deliver, there likely would have been no violation. And if there were, his card-mates would have no trouble calling it. They would have actually pointed it out pre-throw.

So yeah, the rule should probably be changed to allow no fairway run-up.

S&D, (the real S&D) rears its head again.
In reality I do not think I have ever taken a side on this issue. I use S&D enough that it probably wouldn't affect my game or rating very much.

yep..I agree. He took his time laying out his line, approach, etc, and then wow...huge miss. A bit behind is one thing, but off to the side that much would definitely improve that hyzer shot.

I don't think this instance was a foot fault. He was not past the Mando yet which means his line of play is the Mando not the basket, so if his foot is to the back right of the disc which it looks like to me then I would say it is a legal shot.

FINALLY!!
Someone noticed what's really happening. If Ken erred, it was in lining up prior to that throw. Go back 20 seconds and he seems to be lining up and marking a spot to hit in line with the basket. Since he has not yet passed the mando, then by rule his target is the mando and the line-of-play is from the mando to his disc [800.02 "Lie", "Line-of-Play" and 804.02 F "Mandatories"]. He actually should have had a little more room to the right than he actually took.

 

[lyleoross]

You're the only one conflating speeding with foot faults because you fail, either through real or feigned ignorance, to grasp the nature of an analogy.



If you aren't watching when a big chunk of foot faults occur, you can't call them because you can't know whether or not a foot fault actually, much less clearly, occurred, but if a foot fault occurs on the one time in a thousand that you're watching, you're expected to call it.

Refusal to do so is a courtesy violation 804.01.D, which, coupled with your earlier courtesy warning for failure to watch other members of the group to ensure compliance with the rules (801.04.C), earns you a penalty stroke.

Exactly, but here is the rub. The counterpoint laid out earlier was that of speeding, if you speed, you've earned a ticket. The problem is that there is a false equivalency occurring. If, you are African American, or Hispanic, the probability of being pulled over and ticketed isn't the same as if you are white male. In other words, the law isn't applied equally, that taint fair.

Back on track. We have a beloved 13 time world champion, Ken Climo. I've been watching disc golf video for fifteen years, I've seen Ken Climo foot fault many, many, many times. I've never seen him called once, not once.

Lets go to Worlds; beloved Ken, and another player, Mr. Brown call a foot fault on Mr. Stokely. This is an interesting development. Mr. Ken and Mr. Brown are sponsored, within the main stream, players. They look right, correct clothing and hair, and are part of the elite. Mr. Stokely ain't. He's outside the norm, has blue hair, not sponsored, and is outspoken in a way that most Pros aren't. Mr. Ken and Mr. Brown call a foot fault on Mr. Stokely in what appears to be a collusional fashion, to all appearances, they planned it out. Now you have a situation where a player, who appears to be immune from the rule, has called another player out in a preplanned fashion.

Even this is somewhat okay. You can argue that in both the speeding and Worlds cases, the acting bodies are being unfair, and you address it by enforcement and stern talkings to. But then the problem occurs. Scott rethrows, and Ken and Mr. Brown make a second call. Immediately, someone videotaping the incident says, "it didn't look that way to me." And if that is correct, you have a problem. In other words, because of the difficulty in calling the rule, due to the active nature of the violation, it "appears" that two players took advantage of a third. That folks is a definite no no.

Now, do I really think that Ken and Mr. Brown did this. You bet I do. Go look at the video, it's pretty damning. Do I think they are bad, evil guys, no; even Mr. Brown who has a reputation for being cantankerous, has a pretty good reputation away from tournament play.

Do I think the problem is universal or even wide spread? No. Do I think a single occurrance is enough to send a message and to raise concerns? Yes.

The rule is problem because of the nature of the violation. Getting equivalency is tough. And when the rule can be gamed, as it might have been here, there's problem.

 

[JC17393]

I don't think this instance was a foot fault. He was not past the Mando yet which means his line of play is the Mando not the basket, so if his foot is to the back right of the disc which it looks like to me then I would say it is a legal shot.

It's unclear where the mando is in relation to Kenny and the basket. If it's that orange dotted tree on the left side of the frame during the throw in question (which I assume is the case if his supposed miss to the right of his marker lines him up with the mando) and the basket is somewhere to the right of that (assuming Terry's commentary is accurate that Ken was "lining up with the basket" in his set up), then you absolutely do NOT use the mando as the determining point for the line of play, you use the basket.

The only time you do not use the basket as the determining point for line of play is if the line from basket to marker passes on the incorrect side of the mandatory.

804.02 Mandatories
F. The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory. ​

 

[grodney]

Oh, there's a mando? That tree with the spot on it? I don't see a mandatory line, so the line is perpendicular to a line from the mando to the tee. So we don't know if he's passed the mando or not.

But yeah, if he's not passed the mando, he was totally lining up his plant wrong, and his plant is probably okay as it turns out.

Oh, ooops, Sauls got it right. Either that bolded part is new-ish (to me) or I forgot it.

 

[JC17393]

Oh, there's a mando? That tree with the spot on it? I don't see a mandatory line, so the line is perpendicular to a line from the mando to the tee. So we don't know if he's passed the mando or not.

But yeah, if he's not passed the mando, he was totally lining up his plant wrong, and his plant is probably okay as it turns out.

Oh, ooops, Sauls got it right. Either that bolded part is new-ish (to me) or I forgot it.

Not remotely new. It's been the rule since I started playing (1997 edition of the rule book).

 

[Steve West]

I don't think this instance was a foot fault. He was not past the Mando yet which means his line of play is the Mando not the basket, so if his foot is to the back right of the disc which it looks like to me then I would say it is a legal shot.

So, in this case, the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory?

 

[araytx]

Exactly, but here is the rub. The counterpoint laid out earlier was that of speeding, if you speed, you've earned a ticket. The problem is that there is a false equivalency occurring. If, you are African American, or Hispanic, the probability of being pulled over and ticketed isn't the same as if you are white male. In other words, the law isn't applied equally, that taint fair.

Back on track. We have a beloved 13 time world champion, Ken Climo. I've been watching disc golf video for fifteen years, I've seen Ken Climo foot fault many, many, many times. I've never seen him called once, not once.

Lets go to Worlds; beloved Ken, and another player, Mr. Brown call a foot fault on Mr. Stokely. This is an interesting development. Mr. Ken and Mr. Brown are sponsored, within the main stream, players. They look right, correct clothing and hair, and are part of the elite. Mr. Stokely ain't. He's outside the norm, has blue hair, not sponsored, and is outspoken in a way that most Pros aren't. Mr. Ken and Mr. Brown call a foot fault on Mr. Stokely in what appears to be a collusional fashion, to all appearances, they planned it out. Now you have a situation where a player, who appears to be immune from the rule, has called another player out in a preplanned fashion.

Even this is somewhat okay. You can argue that in both the speeding and Worlds cases, the acting bodies are being unfair, and you address it by enforcement and stern talkings to. But then the problem occurs. Scott rethrows, and Ken and Mr. Brown make a second call. Immediately, someone videotaping the incident says, "it didn't look that way to me." And if that is correct, you have a problem. In other words, because of the difficulty in calling the rule, due to the active nature of the violation, it "appears" that two players took advantage of a third. That folks is a definite no no.

Now, do I really think that Ken and Mr. Brown did this. You bet I do. Go look at the video, it's pretty damning. Do I think they are bad, evil guys, no; even Mr. Brown who has a reputation for being cantankerous, has a pretty good reputation away from tournament play.

Do I think the problem is universal or even wide spread? No. Do I think a single occurrance is enough to send a message and to raise concerns? Yes.

The rule is problem because of the nature of the violation. Getting equivalency is tough. And when the rule can be gamed, as it might have been here, there's problem.

I am sorry Lyle, I just can't buy it. And as a 55-yr-old African-American male I have real stories about police officers as my testimony ... but that's a digression.

I have no problem being stopped (or "called out") by an officer if I am speeding -- legitimately. Speeding is a violation of the law whether anyone else is caught speeding or not. The fact that the officer is less likely to stop a speeding white male is inconsequential to the fact that I violated the law. The problem in our society is when he stops me when I AM NOT speeding. again, digression....

Similarly, or analogously, if it IS a foot fault (a violation of the rule) it doesn't change that fact if others have or have not been called on their alleged foot faults. Foot-faulting is a violation of the rule. [The only difference in this analogy is that there is an "official" on the highway, whereas in disc golf we self-officiate.] That's not a problem with the rule. That's a problem with us. Now if you're bringing in the the gambling component, we're talking about an entirely different topic.

I say it IS fair if I'm speeding that I get a ticket (even if some people of other ethnicities/genders won't); and it IS fair that when I foot fault or I see another player foot fault that it is called (even if some others aren't called). I have the choice to not speed and not foot fault. And by the way, I've seen the video several times and I think Mr. Stokely did foot fault both times -- and I like Scott. Whether there was some grassy knoll sinister plot is also inconsequential; if the two people on the scene saw a fault, it's a fault.

 

[araytx]

It's unclear where the mando is in relation to Kenny and the basket. If it's that orange dotted tree on the left side of the frame during the throw in question (which I assume is the case if his supposed miss to the right of his marker lines him up with the mando) and the basket is somewhere to the right of that (assuming Terry's commentary is accurate that Ken was "lining up with the basket" in his set up), then you absolutely do NOT use the mando as the determining point for the line of play, you use the basket.

The only time you do not use the basket as the determining point for line of play is if the line from basket to marker passes on the incorrect side of the mandatory.

804.02 Mandatories
F. The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory. ​

So, in this case, the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory?

Yessirs. Sorry. I stand corrected.

 

[grodney]

Not remotely new. It's been the rule since I started playing (1997 edition of the rule book).

Fo reelz? Ugh. I would have sworn it was just "if you haven't passed the mandatory yet" you used the mando as the target....with no mention of LOP passing the correct side. Since I started in 1993, I supposed it's possible it was added in '97, but I'm probably just wrong.

 

[JC17393]

Fo reelz? Ugh. I would have sworn it was just "if you haven't passed the mandatory yet" you used the mando as the target....with no mention of LOP passing the correct side. Since I started in 1993, I supposed it's possible it was added in '97, but I'm probably just wrong.

I was positive I remembered it correctly, but I went and checked anyway. Every edition of the rules is available at PDGA.com.

From the 1990 book:

803.11 Mandatory Dogleg:
C. When marking the lie, if an imaginary straight line from the lie to the hole does not pass to the correct side of the dogleg, then the dogleg object shall be considered to be the hole for the application of all stance, and marker rules.​

After looking at the 1986 book, it appears that 1990 was when the change was made from using the mando as the target for marking "for all throws until the mando is passed" to "only if the LOP passes on the incorrect side".

 

[Stable]

I noticed this foot fault when I watched the video for the first time yesterday. Easily could have been called for it. Maybe if he wasn't playing with a group of polite young players? If this was a masters level tournament with seasoned pros it would have been called for sure.

 

[sprintermatt]

I also came up with this thought, even though accidental on Kenny's part, the Mando is the radial point to mark the lie before passing the mando. THOUGH... this particular mando is an odd duck. It's effectively a small fence of dead wood, which is probably at a 45 degree angle down the fairway (It's more in play for the long tee which is a true dogleg. This particular lie may have passed the mando, but since there's no defining line, it's hard to say what is truly "past" the mando, in this case, if you shanked your drive to the right, you could "pass" the mando 100 feet right of the tee, but still not be anywhere near past the actual mando.

I think his intent was to throw from behind the basket line lie though, not the mando line. But since it's only noticed in a video, it's moot. Video is not able to be used to call foot faults.

 

[grodney]

I was positive I remembered it correctly, but I went and checked anyway. Every edition of the rules is available at PDGA.com.

From the 1990 book:

803.11 Mandatory Dogleg:
C. When marking the lie, if an imaginary straight line from the lie to the hole does not pass to the correct side of the dogleg, then the dogleg object shall be considered to be the hole for the application of all stance, and marker rules.​

After looking at the 1986 book, it appears that 1990 was when the change was made from using the mando as the target for marking "for all throws until the mando is passed" to "only if the LOP passes on the incorrect side".

Thanks. It's possible I learned on the '86 book, but more likely I've just been wrong.

And sorry for confusing you and Sauls. Both your posting styles are similar and thoughtfully intelligent.

 

[chris deitzel]

Sure looks like his toe was in line with the basket. no foot fault.

 

[SirWalter]

It's unclear where the mando is in relation to Kenny and the basket. If it's that orange dotted tree on the left side of the frame during the throw in question (which I assume is the case if his supposed miss to the right of his marker lines him up with the mando) and the basket is somewhere to the right of that (assuming Terry's commentary is accurate that Ken was "lining up with the basket" in his set up), then you absolutely do NOT use the mando as the determining point for the line of play, you use the basket.

The only time you do not use the basket as the determining point for line of play is if the line from basket to marker passes on the incorrect side of the mandatory.

804.02 Mandatories
F. The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory. ​

Good point. I didn't notice the last part of the rule.