slipping after putting

[autocrosscrx]

You are making this very complicated. OP throws the putt, maintains balance, and slides past the mark, in that order. According to the rule as written no penalty. What you are saying is that you don't consider anyone "in motion" to be displaying balance, therefore the OP threw his putt and slid past the mark without ever displaying balance. That is fine if that is your personal opinion, but nothing in the rule supports you specifically one way or another. Maybe you are correct, maybe I am, until the PDGA addresses it we have two reasonable interpretations.

By your interpretation, a step putt would be legal in C1. No?

 

[Dingus]

By your interpretation, a step putt would be legal in C1. No?

If the step putt involved showing balance, then yes. I think Chuck Kennedy posted a bunch of examples and an in-balance step putt was one of them. Maybe I am misremembering that video... my point stands, if you putt on one foot, display balance, and then step forward with the other it is a legal putt. That would be a ridiculous putt though, as the entire reason to step putt is to put yourself OUT of balance to generate momentum on your disc.

 

[autocrosscrx]

If the step putt involved showing balance, then yes. I think Chuck Kennedy posted a bunch of examples and an in-balance step putt was one of them. Maybe I am misremembering that video... my point stands, if you putt on one foot, display balance, and then step forward with the other it is a legal putt. That would be a ridiculous putt though, as the entire reason to step putt is to put yourself OUT of balance to generate momentum on your disc.

I'm a little confused on your balance definition. An Ezra or Dickerson step putt seems far more controlled (and therefore balanced) than any unplanned slip of one's foot.

Heck, if you look at the definition of balanced that covers controlled emotion, you could argue that anything that Dickerson or Heimburg does in the circle is legal and that it simply isn't legal for Nikko or Hammes to even be in the circle.

 

[Dingus]

I love it when I get to prove myself wrong.

QA-COM-5: As I release a putt, I push off from my back foot so that after release I am balanced on my front foot. I typically freeze there for a couple of seconds, then swing my back foot forward and continue toward the hole. Is that a foot fault?
It's hard to say. Your group will have to make a judgment call. To demonstrate "full control of balance" the player must perform some action that breaks up the flow of movement toward the target after release, before proceeding toward the target. Some examples of actions that demonstrate balance might be: (1) a clear pause and display of balance, (2) placement of the back foot on the ground behind the mark, or (3) retrieval of the marker disc. The key to all of those is to show balance and control of your body behind the mark before moving forward. The best course of action is to leave no room for doubt, which is easy to do if you are indeed in control of your body after you've released the putt.

I guess according to the Q&A a balanced slide would not break the flow of movement to the basket. Which of course makes the majority of "good" throws demonstrated by Chuck Kennedy actually bad, and some of the "bad" throws actually good.



I now want this rule repealed more than ever. When a Q&A makes it even less clear it is not a good sign. Also, why is this Q&A not in the "Putting Area" section on the Q&A page?

 

[Dingus]

I'm a little confused on your balance definition. An Ezra or Dickerson step putt seems far more controlled (and therefore balanced) than any unplanned slip of one's foot.

Heck, if you look at the definition of balanced that covers controlled emotion, you could argue that anything that Dickerson or Heimburg does in the circle is legal and that it simply isn't legal for Nikko or Hammes to even be in the circle.

I think that a skateboarder or surfer is balanced on their board, even though the board is moving. Same concept for sliding in mud. The PDGA does not agree with me I guess, the surfer is ALWAYS out of balance.

 

[klodkrawler05]

I love it when I get to prove myself wrong.

I guess according to the Q&A a balanced slide would not break the flow of movement to the basket. Which of course makes the majority of "good" throws demonstrated by Chuck Kennedy actually bad, and some of the "bad" throws actually good.

I now want this rule repealed more than ever. When a Q&A makes it even less clear it is not a good sign. Also, why is this Q&A not in the "Putting Area" section on the Q&A page?

I've been following along with all the posts in here, I think this Q&A answer pretty much conclusively shows I would've been deserving of a penalty stroke in this instance, The clear break in movement never occurred until after I stopped sliding, at which time I had contacted my lie. Whether or not it is actually called by a card during a sanctioned event seems somewhat up to debate. Although, I feel I would be deserving of the stroke and wouldn't be mad at the call, I had options, I could've cleared by footing before my putt, I could've chosen a different stance, arguably I could've worn grippier shoes less likely to slide.

 

[BillFleming]

This post and question shows there are actually two parts to each rules question.

1. Is "this" legal/illegal per the rules?
2. Would/should "this" be called?

Some things are illegal per the rules, but, even in sanctioned tournaments, don't get called. Such as, the time rule. Nikko is the 'poster boy' for this rule, but there are others. 30 seconds is the rule....there's one video where a spectator says something and Nikko responds that he took all of his 35 seconds. He knows the rule, but he also knows it doesn't get called....so why 'obey it'? There are foot faults that don't get called. Watch almost any tournament where they don't have true tee pads and the front edge of the tee pad is marked by tape or a paint line (it's happened in the current Worlds) and some player's foot slides slightly over the end of the tee pad before the disc is released. Minor, hardly noticeable, but it happens.

In the case of this post....
1. yes, per the rules it is illegal.
2. would it be called - doubtful. Should it - yes, but again, it is doubtful it would be called.

 

[araytx]

So no, there is no rule against stepping on your marker. If I demonstrate balance I am free to step on my marker afterwards, correct?
.

Because you asked me:

If the question is may I step on, (touch, move, etc.), the marker AFTER demonstrating balance, then the answer is yes, of course. Once demonstrating balance your putt is complete without any violations.

If, however, the question is "may I step on (touch, move, etc.) my marker after I release my putt (but before demonstrating balance)", then the answer is no because that is a stance violation according to the rules.

But no, there is no rule explicity stating "you can't step on your marker." The rule is about demonstrating balance before advancing beyond the rear of the marker disc when you're inside of ten meters.

 

[dmoore1998]

Maybe the most difficult part of the rule is not even HAVING balance...you must DEMONSTRATE a "full control" of balance. Whatever that means, and however long that takes for those you are demonstrating for?

 

[dmoore1998]

I think that a skateboarder or surfer is balanced on their board, even though the board is moving. Same concept for sliding in mud. The PDGA does not agree with me I guess, the surfer is ALWAYS out of balance.

The big difference between the 2 might be that surfers and skateboarders are intentionally moving forward (or just moving), while OP was not trying to move forward at all (and was not trying to move at all). Not that I want the rules to try to distinguish between intentional and unintentional movement...but I do think many people will find that intent question relevant to "balance".

 

[Dingus]

Maybe the most difficult part of the rule is not even HAVING balance...you must DEMONSTRATE a "full control" of balance. Whatever that means, and however long that takes for those you are demonstrating for?

Chuck Kennedy says a "two count" in the video, which isn't repeated anywhere in the rules, so take that for what it's worth.

 

[dmoore1998]

Chuck Kennedy says a "two count" in the video, which isn't repeated anywhere in the rules, so take that for what it's worth.

That was kind of my point, towards your point of rules being poor and needing clarified. One of the examples was "putting your back foot on the ground" which I could easily do without balancing (i.e. wide receiver toe drag).

If you have to have a bunch of "off books" clarifications about a rule...either rewrite the rule more rigidly but clearly...or do away with it.

Even "two count" is silly. "Two count" is not a measure of time.

The impression the rules leave is essentially "someone made up this backyard game, wrote down a quick set of rules...and is now trying to do anything they can to leave those rules in place rather than write them correctly". At a professional/competitive level, they really need to be fixed...at the casual level...it won't make much difference because most people don't bother with some aspect of them anyways.

 

[Rastnav]

The big difference between the 2 might be that surfers and skateboarders are intentionally moving forward (or just moving), while OP was not trying to move forward at all (and was not trying to move at all). Not that I want the rules to try to distinguish between intentional and unintentional movement...but I do think many people will find that intent question relevant to "balance".

No, if the intended action was part of the definition, and maintaining "balance" during an intended maneuver counted, then step putts would be legal inside the circle. Heck, jump putts could be considered legal. The idea of being "balanced" applies to all sorts of dynamic actions which involve leaving the feet.

 

[dmoore1998]

No, if the intended action was part of the definition, and maintaining "balance" during an intended maneuver counted, then step putts would be legal inside the circle. Heck, jump putts could be considered legal. The idea of being "balanced" applies to all sorts of dynamic actions which involve leaving the feet.

I'm not speaking to the full rule with my post, only to why people would potentially find it difficult to judge someone to be "balanced" while their body/feet were doing something completely unintentional. In that way, a slip is not much at all like someone surfing. Rule completely aside, simply what people are likely/unlikely to view as someone who is balanced or not.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Chuck Kennedy says a "two count" in the video, which isn't repeated anywhere in the rules, so take that for what it's worth.

The "two count" message was derived from assessing the votes of 8 officials on whether each clip was a Fault or not. As you can see from the pic, any pause less than 2 seconds was considered a Fault by all voters. The 1.8 to 2.2 seconds range had mixed judgments, with 2.8 and longer widely perceived as No Fault. The officials were members or advisors to the Rules Committee in 2011: Dr. Voakes, Korver, Roddick, Damon, Burns, Garnett, Sinclair and me. The code letters match the codes used to identify the clips in the Demonstrating Balance video posted above.

 

[Smigles]

Its always funny when some Dingus questions Chuck in rules questions

"Take it for what it's worth" haha. Certainly worth more than some Dingus