Schusterick close to falling putt?

[jjpitt29]

A count of 2 by who's clock?

Not entirely unrelated digression: Back in 6th grade, we played flag football in gym (that's P.E. for you young 'uns) one day. The gym teacher announced a 3-count rule before you can rush the quarterback. The count modifier had to be the name of an animal that started with the letter "A." His exact words: "I don't care if it's 'one armadillo, two armadillo, three armadillo,' or 'one aardvark, two aardvark, three aardvark,' or "one anaconda, two anaconda, three anaconda," as long as it begins with "A."

First time the ball is snapped, a kid on my team (Craig Walck) blurts out, "One ant, two ant, three ant," and flattens the quarterback before he'd even taken two steps.

The point being that who is counting and how they count can be more important than how high they count.

I don't have a problem with the way the rule is currently written (IMO, stance violations in the 10-20m range are a bigger issue than falling putts), but if it is rewritten, I think it would be preferable to require the thrower to re-establish a stable stance before advancing toward the target. (BTW, anyone else see the loophole in 802.04.D?)

Of course, since the problem of demonstrating/not demonstrating balance typically only occurs on putts at or near the circle's edge, the larger question that has to be asked is, do we really want, or even need, to require a player pause for a two count or perform a specified action before cleaning out the basket on a drop-in?

Totally agree on the two count thing. That's just how the RC defined it. I would think that a 2 count would be 2 seconds, but that is just me. That would probably have to be defined somewhere (definitions maybe?).

Also agree that 10-20m etc is a bigger problem. Although I'm not sure what to do there. I don't want a "stand and deliver" rule...

Ya, 2 counts on drop ins would just be weird... We could go to having no such thing as a falling putt. If you are 6 feet out you can fall forward land on your face as you dunk your putt

 

[Aim For The Chains]

At this point Im starting to think your trolling real hard.

Not really.. Sure playing a little but of devils advocate persay but not trying to troll at all.

Here in this video which I linked to the time at 1:50 is what I am referring to. Chuck basically does the same exact putt which is "legal" WITHOUT even picking up the mini. The disc is just in the basket at 1:54 and he is moving forward at 1:55 and his momementium doesn't change like wills does from having to reach down on one leg and pick up the mini. IMO will demonstrates 2 of the "balance" qualities where chucks approved video putt is much more questionable he just looks less fluid doing it.

http://youtu.be/fEfGz6OMP3g?t=1m50s

After the putt at 1:50 mark it goes on to talk about the walking putt which IMO Will's is nothing like those.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

The disc in the basket has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Nowhere in the rules about stance does it matter whether the disc has come to rest before you fall or step forward. The rule is you have to demonstrate balance before advancing toward the basket.

You can debate whether or not picking up the mini is demonstrating balance, but let's have that discussion based on actual rules, not old drunk guy at leagues rules.

I agree with Mash here, regardless of what you are discussing, make sure to use the PDGA Rulebook, not anything you've heard or always thought

I struggle with the same thing in basketball, its amazing how many rules experts there are and yet they've never read a rulebook, just played pickup ball and listened to the idiots on TV

He's saying that it doesn't matter WHEN you demonstrate balance, as long as its after you release the disc. MJ has demonstrated balance and advanced toward the basket before his putt hits chains many times before

 

[Mocheez]

A count of 2 by who's clock?

Not entirely unrelated digression: Back in 6th grade, we played flag football in gym (that's P.E. for you young 'uns) one day. The gym teacher announced a 3-count rule before you can rush the quarterback. The count modifier had to be the name of an animal that started with the letter "A." His exact words: "I don't care if it's 'one armadillo, two armadillo, three armadillo,' or 'one aardvark, two aardvark, three aardvark,' or "one anaconda, two anaconda, three anaconda," as long as it begins with "A."

First time the ball is snapped, a kid on my team (Craig Walck) blurts out, "One ant, two ant, three ant," and flattens the quarterback before he'd even taken two steps.

The point being that who is counting and how they count can be more important than how high they count.

I don't have a problem with the way the rule is currently written (IMO, stance violations in the 10-20m range are a bigger issue than falling putts), but if it is rewritten, I think it would be preferable to require the thrower to re-establish a stable stance before advancing toward the target. (BTW, anyone else see the loophole in 802.04.D?)

Of course, since the problem of demonstrating/not demonstrating balance typically only occurs on putts at or near the circle's edge, the larger question that has to be asked is, do we really want, or even need, to require a player pause for a two count or perform a specified action before cleaning out the basket on a drop-in?

Is an ant considered an animal or an insect?

 

[Agricolae]

Is an ant considered an animal or an insect?

Yes.

 

[jjpitt29]

Is an ant considered an animal or an insect?

Insects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Yes I'm bored.

 

[DavidCombs]

There is a video that the PDGA has on YouTube that give examples of what's legal for putting and showing balance.

 

[clard]

I've always thought Will should stop doing that, and make his demonstration of balance (behind the lie) more obvious. Why toe the line? There's no advantage to it, and it just causes confusion.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not really.. Sure playing a little but of devils advocate persay but not trying to troll at all.

Here in this video which I linked to the time at 1:50 is what I am referring to. Chuck basically does the same exact putt which is "legal" WITHOUT even picking up the mini. The disc is just in the basket at 1:54 and he is moving forward at 1:55 and his momementium doesn't change like wills does from having to reach down on one leg and pick up the mini. IMO will demonstrates 2 of the "balance" qualities where chucks approved video putt is much more questionable he just looks less fluid doing it.

http://youtu.be/fEfGz6OMP3g?t=1m50s

After the putt at 1:50 mark it goes on to talk about the walking putt which IMO Will's is nothing like those.

The time is counted from the instant when the disc leaves my hand 1:53 to when I first touch something in front of my mini 1:55. What the disc is doing has no bearing on the rule.

 

[coupe]

Insects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Yes I'm bored.

Uh ... check out the sidebar "Scientific Classification" in the wikipedia article ....

In case you've forgotten your HS biology, the taxonomy, from broadest to narrowest, runs Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

"Insect" is a class belonging to the phylum Arthropod, within the kingdom "Animal," so ants (family) are, by definition, animals.

 

[jjpitt29]

Uh ... check out the sidebar "Scientific Classification" in the wikipedia article ....

In case you've forgotten your HS biology, the taxonomy, from broadest to narrowest, runs Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

"Insect" is a class belonging to the phylum Arthropod, within the kingdom "Animal," so ants (family) are, by definition, animals.

Kinda like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All insects are animals, but not all animals are insects. If you ask insect or animal, the best answer is insect. I appreciate the fun, but you'll just confuzzle people.

 

[br2526]

I've always thought Will should stop doing that, and make his demonstration of balance (behind the lie) more obvious. Why toe the line? There's no advantage to it, and it just causes confusion.

He's not the reason for the confusion. The rule is.

 

[kerplunk]

Kinda like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All insects are animals, but not all animals are insects. If you ask insect or animal, the best answer is insect. I appreciate the fun, but you'll just confuzzle people.

But the PE coach said animal, and an ant is an animal. Now let's get back on topic.

I have always been a fan of simplifying the rules as much as possible, which I think most of you are too.

Can we agree that a rule such as "A player must demonstrate balance by placing both feet on the ground behind her lie and remaining in that position for at least two seconds before advancing toward the target" leaves little room for ambiguity. Sure it is silly for tap-ins and short putts, but that silliness is worth it for a nice simple rule, IMO. And for the one-legged guy there could be exceptions, such as "If a player does not have two feet or is unable to stand on one or both of his feet, balance may be determined by a majority group ruling." But in reality I don't think that exception will be applicable very often.

 

[Harrishabitat]

:clap:

He's not the reason for the confusion. The rule is.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I tried to get the RC to specifically state 2 seconds but they are averse to specifying timing wherever possible. If you notice the latest rule revision, the old 3 seconds to call a foot fault was removed.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

isn't that 2 count impossible to police?

Difference between your putt in the video I posted and WS' is he counts ants and you count antelopes.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The video examples ended up where every clip with at least 2.0 seconds from release to contact in front of the mini were deemed acceptable and those less than 2.0 seconds were deemed not enough time. That was strictly by their visual judgment of the clips, not by actual timing. I did the frame by frame timing after they judged each clip. Since the RC did not want to specify 2 seconds, what they have essentially told us in this self-officiated sport is you "know someone has demonstrated balance when you see it." And that means it appears to others that you have taken enough time before moving forward. It's definitely left to judgment. But those examples are as good as we have to go from at this point which is why I forced the issue with the RC.

 

[Jimb]

MJ has demonstrated balance and advanced toward the basket before his putt hits chains many times before

And he just knows that it's going in!!! Wish I could putt that well with that kind of confidence. :clap:

 

[Jimb]

Using Will, although this could apply to anyone who has a "questionable" stance/follow through.

If someone would call Will on it, it probably wouldn't get a 2nd in agreement from the rest of the group anyway, right? So there wouldn't be any harm or foul, or even a warning, right? But just putting the thought in his head might encourage him to alter the motion a little bit to remove all room for debate.

Of course, then the person calling the putt might be accused of gamesmanship and cause other issues in the group, too. :doh:

 

[Jimb]

One more post in this thread. It's interesting that I had another question regarding a different putt on this same video. Not worth starting a new thread, so here it is. (And I posted a question on youtube about it last night, too.)

I was actually wondering if Nikko was outside of the circle for his putt at 21:55 into the video. I'm assuming he was, but it doesn't look like a long putt, and it doesn't take him very many steps to get to the basket, so I was just wondering and thought that I'd mention it.