Tee pad stance violation call - Lake Marshall Open

[Rastnav]

Clearly a stance violation based on 802.07.A.2- "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc"

Not sure how it could be construed to be an equipment violation.

This is really "down in the weeds" kind of question, and I think the way the rule should read so that it would clearly would just be a stance violation. It's clearly some sort of violation.

The nitpicking question at hand is whether the marker disc becomes part of the playing surface when it's on the ground. If it does, then it's a stance violation. If it doesn't then … you don't have a supporting point past the lie if you have your foot only partially on the disc. (This is different than simply bumping it forward, which is clearly a stance violation.)

The illegal device comes in here:

813.02 Illegal Device
D. An item such as a towel or a pad may be placed under a supporting point as long as it is not greater than one centimeter in thickness when compressed.

The disc is an item. It doesn't compress to one centimeter. It's illegal.

Example of how this could possibly even "matter" (in quotes because I acknowledge this is a very fringe case):

Two discs have come to rest in some mud, one right behind the other. Player A should throw first, but player B asks if he can throw first and the group says yes. Player B proceeds to stand on Player A's disc in order to avoid sinking into the mud (let's assume Player A has no objection to this for the hypothetical).

If the disc is actually part of the playing surface, there is no violation.

 

[araytx]

This is really "down in the weeds" kind of question, and I think the way the rule should read so that it would clearly would just be a stance violation. It's clearly some sort of violation.

The nitpicking question at hand is whether the marker disc becomes part of the playing surface when it's on the ground. If it does, then it's a stance violation. If it doesn't then … you don't have a supporting point past the lie if you have your foot only partially on the disc. (This is different than simply bumping it forward, which is clearly a stance violation.)

The illegal device comes in here:



The disc is an item. It doesn't compress to one centimeter. It's illegal.

Example of how this could possibly even "matter" (in quotes because I acknowledge this is a very fringe case):

Two discs have come to rest in some mud, one right behind the other. Player A should throw first, but player B asks if he can throw first and the group says yes. Player B proceeds to stand on Player A's disc in order to avoid sinking into the mud (let's assume Player A has no objection to this for the hypothetical).

If the disc is actually part of the playing surface, there is no violation.

I think there is an interp stating you CAN kneel or stand on on the flight plate of a disc because the flight plate IS <1cm.

 

[foxdawg10]

It doesn't matter whether her foot is hanging off the tee pad, only if it's actually touching the ground. She clearly plants with the better part of the heel on the tee pad and the tee pad is clearly fairly thick. I don't see how she could have her foot in that position and be actually touching the ground at the same time.

Card didn't agree, so it kinda didn't happen. Then Hokum does the same thing. Curious if Ryan did something similar on other tees to get attention on front foot placement.

Edit: when I slip off the front of tee pads I shank the shot, so probably no real violation as you say. Plus I'm ticked and my knee hurts, so pls, no commentary Ms Hokum. Haha.

Calm down, lol. I was responding to the bolded section from Seedlings post about shank nullifying the foot fault. .

 

[coupe]

This is really "down in the weeds" kind of question, and I think the way the rule should read so that it would clearly would just be a stance violation. It's clearly some sort of violation.

The nitpicking question at hand is whether the marker disc becomes part of the playing surface when it's on the ground. If it does, then it's a stance violation. If it doesn't then … you don't have a supporting point past the lie if you have your foot only partially on the disc. (This is different than simply bumping it forward, which is clearly a stance violation.)

The illegal device comes in here:



The disc is an item. It doesn't compress to one centimeter. It's illegal.

Example of how this could possibly even "matter" (in quotes because I acknowledge this is a very fringe case):

Two discs have come to rest in some mud, one right behind the other. Player A should throw first, but player B asks if he can throw first and the group says yes. Player B proceeds to stand on Player A's disc in order to avoid sinking into the mud (let's assume Player A has no objection to this for the hypothetical).

If the disc is actually part of the playing surface, there is no violation.

810.F.2 renders the question of whether a thrown disc or marker can be a playing surface or part of a playing surface irrelevant.

Deliberately stepping on a thrown disc or a marker disc moves it, even if only vertically: two penalty strokes, regardless of whether or not Player A does not object.

 

[seedlings]

Calm down, lol. I was responding to the bolded section from Seedlings post about shank nullifying the foot fault. .

Haha- I'm not on any tournaments…. BUT, what I didn't say very well was Ryan's throw in the video didn't appear to be affected by heel dropping off the teepad before release. If the heel would have dropped a couple of inches before release, the throw probably would have been shanky yanky.

For myself, I just meant the comedy of the shanked throw and tragedy of injured knee might be entertainment and punishment enough to distract Hokum from noticing…

 

[BillFleming]

So, I had this weird train of thought.

If you were to actually end up putting your plant foot on the mini or disc, would that be a stance violation? Or would it be illegal equipment?

I think it would actually technically be the latter, assuming that non of your foot touches the ground past the lie. The marker disc isn't part of the playing surface.

It's a stance violation. It doesn't matter what your foot is on....it is a supporting you ahead of the lie. Imagine there was a tree stump ahead of your lie, just barely above the ground...it isn't the playing surface, but if it is in front of your lie and your foot lands on it before the disc leaves your hand...it's a foot fault/stance violation.

 

[Rastnav]

It's a stance violation. It doesn't matter what your foot is on....it is a supporting you ahead of the lie. Imagine there was a tree stump ahead of your lie, just barely above the ground...it isn't the playing surface, but if it is in front of your lie and your foot lands on it before the disc leaves your hand...it's a foot fault/stance violation.

Not sure why you think a tree stump is not part of the playing surface. Usually you'd be able to take a stance on one.

Instead, let's talk about a branch on a bush or a tree instead. It's definitely not part of the playing surface. If it is in front of your lie, as would be common if your disc is in the middle of said bush, you can still make contact with it before you release your disc, and there is no penalty. Otherwise half the shots played out of the rough would be penalized.

The rule is about making contact with the playing surface past the lie, not various things that aren't part of the surface.

But, the part about using something for support past the lie is a good point.

 

[Rastnav]

810.F.2 renders the question of whether a thrown disc or marker can be a playing surface or part of a playing surface irrelevant.

Deliberately stepping on a thrown disc or a marker disc moves it, even if only vertically: two penalty strokes, regardless of whether or not Player A does not object.

Hmmm, not sure that I see the "vertical" interpretation as valid, and I wonder whether the rule applies to moving a disc inadvertently. The rule, in the context of 810 overall, seems to be written to apply only intentionally moving another players disc in order to change their lie.

 

[Steve West]

...
The rule is about making contact with the playing surface past the lie, not various things that aren't part of the surface.
...

Actually, the rule IS also about various things that aren't part of the surface.

802.04 Teeing Off
B. When the disc is released, the player must have at least one supporting point within the teeing area, and all supporting points must be within the teeing area. A supporting point is any part of the player's body that is, at the time of release, in contact with the playing surface or any other object that provides support. A supporting point is any part of the player's body that is, at the time of release, in contact with the playing surface or any other object that provides support.

802.07 Stance
A. If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
[…]
2. Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc[.]
[…]

[Bold added.]

 

[txmxer]

The definition of "playing surface" seems to result in many of these discusssions/debates.

 

[seedlings]

The definition of "playing surface" seems to result in many of these discusssions/debates.

I kinda hoped in the last 50 years someone would have resolved the question of 'what's the playing surface' of a teepad.

 

[foxdawg10]

Haha- I'm not on any tournaments…. BUT, what I didn't say very well was Ryan's throw in the video didn't appear to be affected by heel dropping off the teepad before release. If the heel would have dropped a couple of inches before release, the throw probably would have been shanky yanky.

For myself, I just meant the comedy of the shanked throw and tragedy of injured knee might be entertainment and punishment enough to distract Hokum from noticing…

True true, lolol. You would think the shanked shot is penalty enough, hehehe.

 

[Rastnav]

Actually, the rule IS also about various things that aren't part of the surface.


…

any other object that provides support.

That is interesting. I didn't realize that prohibition for getting support in front of the lie was buried in the definition of teeing off. I'm assuming that is a global definition for supporting point, but the fact that exists buried inside the rule for teeing off makes it a little ambiguous. Given that is a general definition of supporting point, it does categorically settle at least the part of the side question about why stepping on the marker disc would be a stance violation.

Of course, it does raise the question of what constitutes "support", but that's probably similar to the definition of pornography.

 

[Steve West]

That is interesting. I didn't realize that prohibition for getting support in front of the lie was buried in the definition of teeing off. I'm assuming that is a global definition for supporting point, but the fact that exists buried inside the rule for teeing off makes it a little ambiguous. Given that is a general definition of supporting point, it does categorically settle at least the part of the side question about why stepping on the marker disc would be a stance violation.

Of course, it does raise the question of what constitutes "support", but that's probably similar to the definition of pornography.

The location of that rule is one of the known minor flaws.

Still, the definition counts wherever it is. Besides, that's where the Index points you when you look for Supporting Point.

"any other object that provides support" is there to make it OK for your arm to brush a branch in front of the lie during a throw, but make it not OK to stand or lean on anything in front of the lie, even if it is not a playing surface. Like a tree trunk, the side of a building, your cart, your umbrella, or the marker disc: all not playing surfaces and all (when in front of the lie) not OK to use for support at release.

Note that the rule does not say "could provide support", it says "provides support". This means the question is not what type of object you are touching, the question is how you are using it. So, smacking your throwing hand on a tree trunk in front of the lie would not be illegal because the tree trunk was not providing support.

See also Moving Obstacles.