AS others have said, a tournament official may make calls and may second calls. In fact a stance violation by the official might be one that doesn't need a second. But they certainly can second. 801.02. F. and G.
-
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)
Ledgestone 2022
- Thread starter Jolt
- Start date
AS others have said, a tournament official may make calls and may second calls. In fact a stance violation by the official might be one that doesn't need a second. But they certainly can second. 801.02. F. and G.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
If she thought no one was watching, she could have called a violation of:
Because it is a courtesy violation, the following applies:
So, for any player that had not previously been warned for a courtesy violation, the call would have been just a warning and would have stuck. For any player who HAD already been warned, there would have been a penalty involved, and it would have needed to be seconded to stick.
Yes. In fact, this exact situation happened to me. I hooked my leg around a tree behind me for a difficult putt (made it!) and got called and seconded. They read the rule later when there was a break and uncalled it. If they hadn't, I could have appealed later.
A call must be made promptly to be enforced. That's so the facts of the case can be established while still fresh and still in the area where it happened. But promptly doesn't apply to cancelling a call to be un-enforced.
The rules are steeply slanted toward making sure no unjust penalties are applied.
For a call that needed to be seconded, either person could cancel it in good faith.
This rule IS hard to follow. .
In this case i think everyone on the card stood to the left of Paige, so there is no way they could see if Paige touch the "other side of the tree"
And Kristin said "i was looking at your feet" . . and thats what you do, you cant look everyware at once.
Even Ian in the didnt see it untill the 3rd rerun, the camera was on Paiges right and her body was blocking the wiew.
And every single time a player goes in to the ruff, the player goes in alone and takes the shoot, sometimes another player look at the stance from a distance but i have never seen the card standing behind a player in the deep ruff
In this case i think everyone on the card stood to the left of Paige, so there is no way they could see if Paige touch the "other side of the tree"
And Kristin said "i was looking at your feet" . . and thats what you do, you cant look everyware at once.
Even Ian in the didnt see it untill the 3rd rerun, the camera was on Paiges right and her body was blocking the wiew.
And every single time a player goes in to the ruff, the player goes in alone and takes the shoot, sometimes another player look at the stance from a distance but i have never seen the card standing behind a player in the deep ruff
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
Whenever I need to take a funky stance, I prefer confirming in advance, "you guys agree that this is ok?", I am doing x,y,z because the rules allow me to do so, as long as a,b,c. If you disagree, lets go to the rulebook."
Sometimes I may have a foot outside the teepad on my back swing to stretch out a more advantageous line. To avoid any misunderstanding I will say "I know I am not supposed to touch anything outside the tee, but thats only when the disc is released. I am going to lift that back leg off the ground before the disc leaves my hand. Watch for it, if you please."
Sometimes I may have a foot outside the teepad on my back swing to stretch out a more advantageous line. To avoid any misunderstanding I will say "I know I am not supposed to touch anything outside the tee, but thats only when the disc is released. I am going to lift that back leg off the ground before the disc leaves my hand. Watch for it, if you please."
Last edited:
Flick Maniac
* Ace Member *
Yes. Supporting points can be which ever parts of you body and placed anywhere, as long as
https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80207
https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80207
Nice, I must admit that I did not knew that, and I wonder how many do…..I have been told several times that I could not lean against a tree even if it was behind my lie.
And did Paige or anyone on her card know that, even Jeff?
Paige must have seen that the tree was behind her lie..or someone on the card should have pointed that out…
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
I think i have to read the rules. . .so its really ok to grab a tree IF its behind your lie??
https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/sta/...h-or-other-object-behind-my-lie-while-putting
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
I think i have to read the rules
Maybe write the Swedish translation while you're at it?
I´m not a "rules guy" i play for fun. . but it surprises me that Paige and Jeff and the rest of the card didnt know the rules. .
And maybe as a Swede i just interpreters things badly. . but if i understand this correct, that IS a wierd rule. .
And maybe as a Swede i just interpreters things badly. . but if i understand this correct, that IS a wierd rule. .
I don't believe that this question is the right one for the situation. krupicka is answering your question, but it's not relevant to what happened with Paige.
Paige release the putt. Then fell backwards and to the side, and then touched the tree for balance. The relevant rule here 806.01.B which states:
If you want a long discussion of this rule, see this thread.
However, the thing to note here is that the violation Paige could have committed was failing to "demonstrate full control of balance behind the marker disc before advancing toward the target". Given that the tree was behind the marker disc, she demonstrated full control of balance behind the marker disc.
The question krupicka linked to has to do with what you can do as you take your stance. In particular, the part about not moving the tree has nothing to do with this rule. Paige could have legally grabbed a small tree or bush after the putt and bent it over while falling to the ground, all so long as she didn't contact past the lie (and the tree or bush would need to not contact past the lie) until she came to a stop.
NOStheBOSS
Double Eagle Member
the PDGA released a video showing various legal putts, one was a guy who released the putt and then flat out fell backwards on his butt. Legal.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Useful clips at 2:57 and 4:21. Not on PDGA anymore since rule numbers referenced have changed. Video is now on my site since content is still accurate.
NOStheBOSS
Double Eagle Member
Amazing video. I always laugh.
ILUVSMGS18
Just Another Disc Hoarder
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,476
Thank you for this! Now can we get one demonstrating how to legally jump/step putt (even though it really need to be banned IMO)?
dmoore1998
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 961
I'm not sure they didn't know the rules as much as thinking she'd touched a tree in front of her...then when "word" got around a couple holes later they reconsidered whether the tree was in front or not.
robdeforge
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,356
the commentators mentioned that Jeff Spring called a "temporary second". is that a thing, or did they misspeak?
No. Temporary for what? Until video evidence is reviewed and the call is confirmed or refuted? There can be no temporary, because there is no additional information that can be used.
It was clear nobody on the card OR Spring saw the tree touch. If the call is to be seconded, it cannot be, should not be. Should have been the end of the discussion, except for perhaps called your cardmates for not watching.
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,514
Truly don't know. I was not at the event.
robdeforge
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,356
In case anybody wants to see, I tried to time stamp at 1:27:29 which has the discussion between Spring and players on the tee of 14.
Jeff says: "I was very clear that I was doing a second so that we could move on" before clarifying that based on his understanding of the rules it is not a fault.
It seems to me that they were basically trying to do the "if the ruling is uncertain, use a provisional and play out both options" except this rules question would not result in two different lies to play out.
Seems they got to the correct result ultimately (no penalty on Paige) but may not have gotten there in the 100% correct way
Similar threads
