charris414
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 558
good points ... posted without thinking it entirely through and immediately those situations came to mind
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)
Okay.. He's not quite hulk angry but he gets offended if I call him on something (even though I have been playing disc golf on and off for roughly 13 years). Basically what he does is a basic spin putt. His right foot is planted behind the marker. As he is putting he begins to take a step forward. This usually occurs in under 30ft. He steps forward and the left foot lands in front of the marker before the disc is at rest in the basket.
Once again with all due respect... no its not.
I agree it's not there in writing (2 seconds) but there are many words in our language that indicate number values implicitly such as "few." It's not 1 and it's not 5. It's probably 2 or 3. We now know that RC considers the implicit meaning of "demonstrate balance" to be at least 2 seconds. One second isn't long enough and three seconds is more than enough. Just like you had to learn the meaning of "few", the RC via the videos is clarifying the meaning of "demonstrate balance" which incorporates a time judgment.Once again with all due respect... no its not.
I think this statement was misunderstood. There's no way this is acceptable under 99% of circumstances (because there are always timing exceptions like huge spike putts around large trees, etc). It sounds to me like he's doing the "feldberg step" inside 30 feet. That instance of his left foot becoming a balance point with it being closer to the target than his foot in the line of play is not a show of balance until his "off-foot" is closer to the basket than his foot behind the marker. That's a violation every time, right?
I agree it's not there in writing (2 seconds) but there are many words in our language that indicate number values implicitly such as "few." It's not 1 and it's not 5. It's probably 2 or 3. We now know that RC considers the implicit meaning of "demonstrate balance" to be at least 2 seconds. One second isn't long enough and three seconds is more than enough. Just like you had to learn the meaning of "few", the RC via the videos is clarifying the meaning of "demonstrate balance" which incorporates a time judgment.
There is no point beating our heads against the wall on this, you obviously are very strong in your opinion. If anyone ever tried to call me for not remaining still for two seconds, I would hand them my rule book, say show me, then move on.
Just for the record...I was again state, this is the worst "rule" we have in the sport.
for inside the circle the easiest fix to this would be to change the rule such that both feet must touch the ground, behind your marker, before you may advance towards the basket. Pretty much eliminated the requirement for demonstrating balance.
I guess poor Will would have to rock back after his putt, but boo hoo. If you are in control it is no effort to place your foot back on the ground
Not sure why DG rules need be so vague and complicated at times
And I would say it's in the rulebook in the meaning of "demonstrate balance". Note: the thrower is excluded from making/defending a foot fault call so it's simply up to the other players in the group. Showing them the rulebook means nothing if in their judgment, you didn't take enough time to demonstrate balance before moving forward. Even on appeal to the TD, the TD might say if the one or two players making the call felt it was too fast, it was too fast. And since video evidence isn't allowed, showing a clip can't help.There is no point beating our heads against the wall on this, you obviously are very strong in your opinion. If anyone ever tried to call me for not remaining still for two seconds, I would hand them my rule book, say show me, then move on.
Just for the record...I was again state, this is the worst "rule" we have in the sport.
But not eliminate the falling putt...or it would effectively legalize it. How soon after requiring only that both feet must touch the ground behind the marker would we start seeing NFL sideline style toe drags as players let their momentum take them forward toward the target? Is that really an improvement?for inside the circle the easiest fix to this would be to change the rule such that both feet must touch the ground, behind your marker, before you may advance towards the basket. Pretty much eliminated the requirement for demonstrating balance.
put a marker on the ground, lift one leg in the air, try to reach down and get the marker without falling or touching the ground in front of the marker with either hand, does that not equate to demonstrating balance on your part? I think to most people that would be an example of demonstrating balance.
And I would say it's in the rulebook in the meaning of "demonstrate balance". Note: the thrower is excluded from making/defending a foot fault call so it's simply up to the other players in the group. Showing them the rulebook means nothing if in their judgment, you didn't take enough time to demonstrate balance before moving forward. Even on appeal to the TD, the TD might say if the one or two players making the call felt it was too fast, it was too fast. And since video evidence isn't allowed, showing a clip can't help.
So deny the two seconds all you wish. But actual tests indicate that if you hold your movement for at least two seconds before making forward contact, you're probably good in the judgment of most players. What sucks is if you have two players in your group that think three seconds is the minimum. That's an example where having that two seconds explicitly in writing can matter.
But not eliminate the falling putt...or it would effectively legalize it. How soon after requiring only that both feet must touch the ground behind the marker would we start seeing NFL sideline style toe drags as players let their momentum take them forward toward the target? Is that really an improvement?
I see your point.
Edit: Following a putt inside the circle, both feet must be in contact with ground, behind the marker, and the player must be at rest.
I think this would eliminate toe drag falling putts
If you pick up the marker without advancing or attempting to advance, sure. But what about instances where you are on one foot, you reach down to pick up your marker and then your next motion is forward? I just got up from the desk and tried this about ten times. Five where I stood on one foot, picked up the marker and then brought my back foot down again behind the mark. Easy, no problem. The next five I stood on one foot, picked up the marker then tried to straighten up and "balance" on one leg so that my next move was forward weren't so easy. In fact, I stumbled forward on all but one attempt, and the fifth time where I didn't stumble, it would have been far easier to put the other foot down instead of standing on one leg wavering. Definitely wouldn't consider myself balanced on the stumbles, though, and that's what I envision a lot of players doing if the marker pick up was the demarcation of fault or no fault.
no one said it had to look pretty, and i agree a stumble forward is a fault, but on the successful fifth attempt, by the time you reached down, grabbed your marker, straightened back up and swung that foot forward, two, probably three seconds had passed... at that point your step forward is legal, right?
This means you have almost 12 inches to work with, I can see that being enough room to 'fall' into.