bhadella
* Ace Member *
If only Kenny had a forehand for those kind of shots......
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)
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.Dave Greenwell got called for a foot fault from the tee.
Warning and re-throw.
He aced the re-throw.
True story.
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.
[Insert Stuart Scott's famous catch phrase here]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.
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....
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.
S&D, (the real S&D) rears its head again.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.