pierce falling putt

[chevis]

here's a fun one posted on youtube

paige puts her hand on a tree after putting. to me, it appears she had already stopped her forward momentum on her own, so no penalty (which is what is ultimately ruled).
a few things to discuss:

no cardmates see this & paige calls herself, but doesn't get a 2nd = no penalty; courtesy violation on cardmates for not watching? - can't expect cardmates to catch everything

let's say she didn't stop her forward momentum; if she stops herself with the tree, is that a violation?... does the it matter if the tree is in front/behind her lie? what if her trailing foot accidentally catches a tree & stops her forward momentum?

 

[_MTL_]

She has the right to grab and hold items in her stance. This tree was in her stance. Respect for the self call, but it was incorrect.

Also, even though it was a self call, players cannot call penalties on themselves. All calls that incur a penalty must have a second or be made by an official.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Contact appears to be behind her lie. No foul. (QA-STA-2) Even if she were falling forward and used that specific hand position on the tree behind her lie to pull herself back to steady herself, no foul as long as she doesn't make contact with a supporting object or playing surface in front of her lie before regaining balance.

 

[dmoore1998]

I believe the final ruling wasn't that she didn't use the tree to stop herself, it was that the tree wasn't in front of her lie which means it's fine as a supporting point.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Difficult situation, as you can't fault her card mates for watching her feet/stance, rather than her off hand, or where the nearest tree was, relative to her marker.

She has the right to grab and hold items in her stance. This tree was in her stance. Respect for the self call, but it was incorrect.

Also, even though it was a self call, players cannot call penalties on themselves. All calls that incur a penalty must have a second or be made by an official.

Had the entire trunk been in front of her lie, and she did the same thing, would it then have been a violation that could legitimately been 2nd'd?

If so, a player is allowed to brace their self from committing a falling putt if the supporting object is in or behind their lie, but not if it's in front their lie?

Because it seems like you're implying that where the trunk was, relative to her lie, is a determining factor.

Am I missing something here?

 

[dmoore1998]

I thought the more interesting piece was that initially an official seconded the call. And the official (I believe it was Jeff Spring) didn't appear to have seen anything and was just making the second because Paige wanted him to. I don't know if that's supported by a rule (specifically that he can just second or make a call that relies on seeing something without actually seeing it) but that seems like a poor idea if the rules support it (I get why he did it, she was worried she'd committed a violation that everyone was going to see but which she had no way to call against herself).

 

[chevis]

Contact appears to be behind her lie. No foul. (QA-STA-2) Even if she were falling forward and used that specific hand position on the tree behind her lie to pull herself back to steady herself, no foul as long as she doesn't make contact with a supporting object or playing surface in front of her lie before regaining balance.

ok, let's say that tree is smaller, where it would move if she grabs it. according to that qa, it becomes a violation because the tree moves when she grabs it.

 

[BrotherDave]

Difficult situation, as you can't fault her card mates for watching her feet/stance, rather than her off hand, or where the nearest tree was, relative to her marker.



Had the entire trunk been in front of her lie, and she did the same thing, would it then have been a violation that could legitimately been 2nd'd?

If so, a player is allowed to brace their self from committing a falling putt if the supporting object is in or behind their lie, but not if it's in front their lie?

Because it seems like you're implying that where the trunk was, relative to her lie, is a determining factor.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, you can literally sit on a tree if it's behind your lie. If it's between your lie and the basket, no touchy. Think of the rule about how forward your off foot can be in a straddle putt. In Pierce's case her left hand was the off foot in a straddle putt. She used it to stop her momentum by going off to the side or parallel to her lie.

 

[_MTL_]

Difficult situation, as you can't fault her card mates for watching her feet/stance, rather than her off hand, or where the nearest tree was, relative to her marker.



Had the entire trunk been in front of her lie, and she did the same thing, would it then have been a violation that could legitimately been 2nd'd?

If so, a player is allowed to brace their self from committing a falling putt if the supporting object is in or behind their lie, but not if it's in front their lie?

Because it seems like you're implying that where the trunk was, relative to her lie, is a determining factor.

Am I missing something here?

If it is in her stance, her distance to the basket is irrelevant. If can be held, pushed off of, etc. Anything that is not clearly damaging the course.

If it is in front of her stance, her distance is important. Outside the circle (10 M or referred to as C1, circle 1, etc) , if its part of a follow through on release, again, no issue.

If it is in front of her stance and if she is inside 10M, it depends. She must demonstrate balance (806.01 B). Falling forward and grabbing something immediately clearly doesn't do this and is a violation as described in 806.01. If its a few seconds later, then its up to the card to make the determination if she has demonstrated balance.

 

[Ess-dog]

I thought the more interesting piece was that initially an official seconded the call. And the official (I believe it was Jeff Spring) didn't appear to have seen anything and was just making the second because Paige wanted him to. I don't know if that's supported by a rule (specifically that he can just second or make a call that relies on seeing something without actually seeing it) but that seems like a poor idea if the rules support it (I get why he did it, she was worried she'd committed a violation that everyone was going to see but which she had no way to call against herself).

I thought the more interesting piece was that there wasn't a call made (because you can barely tell on camera so in person it'd be easy to miss - who's looking for that infraction?), she had just bogied the last 5 of 8 and had tanked her chances already, and then she continued inserting her issue into the card interfering with their round. All while Missy Gannon ran away with it and Ohn squeezed into 2nd.

 

[coupe]

ok, let's say that tree is smaller, where it would move if she grabs it. according to that qa, it becomes a violation because the tree moves when she grabs it.

Not necessarily. QA-STA-2 specifically applies to the stance, not the followthrough:

QA-STA-2: Can I hold onto a branch or other object behind my lie while putting?

Holding on to something behind your lie for support is not prohibited by the rules, provided that the object is in-bounds. It also must not be moved, since you are required to take the stance that results in the least possible movement of obstacles on the course. You are not allowed to hold onto another person for support, as that person is not part of the course.[/qoute]

Since it is clear in the video that Pierce does not make contact with the tree until after the putt is released, any movement could be considered incidental if it were judged to have been caused by her throwing motion (which is specifically permitted in 803.01.A), and therefore not a violation.

 

[dmoore1998]

I thought the more interesting piece was that there wasn't a call made (because you can barely tell on camera so in person it'd be easy to miss - who's looking for that infraction?), she had just bogied the last 5 of 8 and had tanked her chances already, and then she continued inserting her issue into the card interfering with their round. All while Missy Gannon ran away with it and Ohn squeezed into 2nd.

I get why she did it though...I mean she outright admitted why she did it. She knew it was on camera, and she was worried about being called a "cheater" by the internet.

 

[Smigles]

Contact appears to be behind her lie. No foul. (QA-STA-2) Even if she were falling forward and used that specific hand position on the tree behind her lie to pull herself back to steady herself, no foul as long as she doesn't make contact with a supporting object or playing surface in front of her lie before regaining balance.

Does it matter in which direction you are falling? The rule says you have to demonstrate balance, how are you demonstrating balance when you are falling in any direction?

 

[krupicka]

Does it matter in which direction you are falling? The rule says you have to demonstrate balance, how are you demonstrating balance when you are falling in any direction?

You only need to demonstrate balance before going past your lie.

 

[coupe]

I get why she did it though...I mean she outright admitted why she did it. She knew it was on camera, and she was worried about being called a "cheater" by the internet.

So instead she calls everyone else on her card cheaters.

Real nice. :\

 

[Smigles]

You only need to demonstrate balance before going past your lie.

So you can putt, fall down (behind your lie), get back up, hop on one leg to demonstrate balance, advance past your lie and that counts?

 

[Nick Pacific]

Contact appears to be behind her lie. No foul. (QA-STA-2) Even if she were falling forward and used that specific hand position on the tree behind her lie to pull herself back to steady herself, no foul as long as she doesn't make contact with a supporting object or playing surface in front of her lie before regaining balance.

Learn something new here all the time, thank you. Even Paige didn't know that!

 

[chevis]

So you can putt, fall down (behind your lie), get back up, hop on one leg to demonstrate balance, advance past your lie and that counts?

yes. you don't even have to hop on one leg, just getting back up demonstrates balance... or does it?... maybe you get struck in the head just as you release your disc, falling down (backward), but you are woosy from the blow to the head & stumble past your lie trying to get back up. "footfault!" adding insult to injury.

 

[txmxer]

It's similar to no rolling stops at stop signs.

 

[Cgkdisc]

So you can putt, fall down (behind your lie), get back up, hop on one leg to demonstrate balance, advance past your lie and that counts?

This Demonstrate Balance video remains valid under current rules.