The Foot "Fault"

[Harrishabitat]

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. .

Can we all just agree to call the game by the rules as they are written instead of how some people interpret the rules?

 

[kerplunk]

Can we all just agree to call the game by the rules as they are written instead of how some people interpret the rules?

So you are of the opinion that the rules are perfect as written and have no areas that could benefit from clarification? I don't even think the PDGA thinks that.

 

[Mabuku1]

Whether there is clarification or not, the rules are what they are. Trying to stretch the limits of technicalities can be borderline cheating. Compare athletic sports using performance enhancing substances, and the line they walk, UNTIL, they get recognized and then declared illegal. Their rules are most likely far more than what will fit into a 3" 15page leaflet. It's all up to interpretation, and cultural ethics. What's wrong to someone might not be wrong to another and they are both right, because their environment is what sets the standard.

 

[scarpfish]

WTF??!!!! Just eliminate all these grey areas and require two feet on the ground for putts in the circle until the disc comes to rest.

So, if my putt hits the facemask and rolls/wobbles around in a circle for a few seconds, I have to keep my feet on the ground longer than if I make it or it dies on the ground immediately? Yeah, that's black and white.

Seems to me a 2 second rule would be easier to enforce, and more fair.

 

[Cadmanic]

The 95% of the disc golf world that does not come to DGCR and read Chuck's posts have absolutely NO idea that "2 seconds" has anything to do with anything inside the circle.

As many have suggested, while the RC may intend 2 seconds to be a standard, until it is specifically written into the rules, it is not.

Personally, I think it's funny anyone would need to take a step to throw a disc less than 32'-9 11/16".

 

[DeadEye]

WTF??!!!! Just eliminate all these grey areas and require two feet on the ground for putts in the circle until the disc comes to rest.

This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen on DGCR, and that's saying a lot. So.. Two feet have to stay on the ground until it comes to a rest? Well that means pretty much everyone will have to change their putting styles entirely since everyone other than maybe a few straddle-putters lift up at least one foot for the weight-transfer and leg-kick.

 

[Harrishabitat]

This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen on DGCR, and that's saying a lot. So.. Two feet have to stay on the ground until it comes to a rest? Well that means pretty much everyone will have to change their putting styles entirely since everyone other than maybe a few straddle-putters lift up at least one foot for the weight-transfer and leg-kick.

I agree the two feet until disc comes to rest is going a little to far. I still don't know what the problem with two points of contact (feet, or knees or whatever) behind the lie, is. People mention the toe dragging issue...is this really an issue? I can't see a legitimate situation where someone is going to have THAT much momentum going forward inside the circle where they are going to have to do a Larry Fitzgerald toe drag.

 

[ERicJ]

The QA section and videos are part of the official rules...so the 2 seconds is official in that sense. This QA article is the official description of how to interpret this rule.

Wait... what? Where are these official videos?

 

[ERicJ]

There is no "two second" verbiage in the written rules. That's a fact.

You can make a video and analyze the RC response to try and discern their intent, but until that results in a change to the written rules it doesn't amount to anything during a sanctioned round.

And calling it "two beats" instead of "two seconds" doesn't help the cause by changing to units that have no standardized duration.

As was previously stated, but is worth reiterating: a player may have remained balanced and completely motionless for 2.9 seconds, but if a couple players in the group think "demonstrate full control of balance" means three seconds, then they can call the player and said player has no recourse under the written rules.

The rule is poorly written today; add the "two seconds" wording and be done with it.

 

[ERicJ]

Funny that so much time and energy gets expended attempting to clarify/define what it means to "demonstrate full control of balance" yet no one seems to notice the glaring error in 802.04.D that nullifies the interpretation of the rule on which those attempts rest.

Are you trying to play word games with part C that says "except when putting"? If so, part D specifically defines a "putt" (in the context of the rules) as a throw within 10m.

Considering no one seems to be noticing this so-called "glaring error", why don't you spell it out for us like we're six instead of continuing to allude to it like it's going to magically occur to us all just because you mention it.

Nope. The error is specific to 802.4.D.

Take a close look at the definition of "supporting point," then ask yourself, "What's missing from 802.4.D?"

seriously its annoying that you are being so vague. Explain your point or please stop posting

This better be REALLY good.

I'm waiting to see the glaring error.

I believe he's trying to point out this:

800.02 Definitions
Supporting Point
At the time of release, any part of a player's body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object that provides support.

802.04.D
Putting: Any throw from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target.


Per the written rules: "supporting points" are defined to only exist at the time of [disc] release.

So... referring to a supporting point after the disc has been released has no meaning. By definition it's impossible to have a "supporting point" at any point in time other than the moment of disc release.

 

[mashnut]

I believe he's trying to point out this:

800.02 Definitions
Supporting Point
At the time of release, any part of a player's body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object that provides support.

802.04.D
Putting: Any throw from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target.


Per the written rules: "supporting points" are defined to only exist at the time of [disc] release.

So... referring to a supporting point after the disc has been released has no meaning. By definition it's impossible to have a "supporting point" at any point in time other than the moment of disc release.

It's a bit vague, but of all the issues in the rule book this is a pretty easy one to understand what the point of the rule and the definition are. That definition could use some updating, but I would love to see someone try to use that to argue a foot fault in a round.

 

[Giv'r]

Blah blah blah. Just don't step forward ever after you putt. Simple. Right?

 

[coupe]

I believe he's trying to point out this:

800.02 Definitions
Supporting Point
At the time of release, any part of a player's body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object that provides support.

802.04.D
Putting: Any throw from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target.


Per the written rules: "supporting points" are defined to only exist at the time of [disc] release.

So... referring to a supporting point after the disc has been released has no meaning. By definition it's impossible to have a "supporting point" at any point in time other than the moment of disc release.

Not quite.

The phrase "At the time of release" in 800.02 defines the status of any given body part as it pertains to subsequent action: it's either a supporting point or a non-supporting point. Since 800.02 explicitly defines supporting points as any body part that is in contact with the playing surface or an object capable of support AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, by definition, any body part that is NOT in contact with one of those surfaces is at the time of release is NOT a supporting point.

The problem in 802.04.D is the inclusion of the phrase "supporting point." If the second sentence said, "Contact with the playing surface or an object closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker discs after the disc has been released is a stance violation" there wouldn't be a problem, but by including the phrase "supporting point," 802.04.D limits the prohibition against contact closer to the target to supporting points: it does NOT prohibit contact by non-supporting points.

Even granting that that is not the rule's intention, in light of the Rules Committee's long-standing and oft-repeated dictum that actions not prohibited in the rules are permitted, the failure to include non-supporting point contact closer to the target when putting in the prohibition implicitly permits such contact.

 

[JoakimBL]

So what this means is that the actual rules are that if my left foot is not in contact with the ground at the time of release, my left foot cannot cause a stance violation/falling put call, should I put if forward of my lie immediately after my disc has been released. But I cannot move my right foot forward of my lie, before I'm complete balanced. That makes Feldbergs step put legal inside 10 meters, but must "jump putts" illegal.

That doesn't have to be a mistake in the rules, and we have to assume that it is not, until it is addressed.

I will however argue to all of those trying to come up with better definitions than "showing complete control of balance" that the absolutely best way to fix this, is eliminating the whole inside/outside of the circle BS. There is no need for that rule in the rule book what so ever. Just eliminate the distinction and allow players to jump as much the want and land wherever they want. Nobody will gain any advantage as everybody will have the same opportunity to do the exact same thing.

And also this:

"The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target"

Common sense should take over from there. People can argue semantics all they want but a falling putt is like porn. It may not be definable but you know it when you see it.

If people cannot determine if someone is balanced or not, maybe they should not be playing disc golf or at least be calling rules infractions that has the word balance in them before they learn that. The only problem with that part of the rule, is assuming that players are smart enough to understand what it means. The most serious problem with the disc golf rules is assuming that players bother reading them.

 

[coupe]

So what this means is that the actual rules are that if my left foot is not in contact with the ground at the time of release, my left foot cannot cause a stance violation/falling put call, should I put if forward of my lie immediately after my disc has been released. But I cannot move my right foot forward of my lie, before I'm complete balanced. That makes Feldbergs step put legal inside 10 meters

Unless and until the Rules Committee determines otherwise and/or 802.04.D is revised to remove the permission, that is clearly permissible.

That doesn't have to be a mistake in the rules, and we have to assume that it is not, until it is addressed.

No, it doesn't have to be a mistake, however, given the RC's determination that the examples in the Rules School video in which a non-supporting point makes contact with the playing surface prior to demonstrating full control of balance constitute stance violations, it's more reasonable to infer that they failed to see the problem created by the injecting "supporting point" into the rule than that they knowingly and intentionally decided to permit non-supporting point contact.

 

[kerplunk]

I will however argue to all of those trying to come up with better definitions than "showing complete control of balance" that the absolutely best way to fix this, is eliminating the whole inside/outside of the circle BS. There is no need for that rule in the rule book what so ever. Just eliminate the distinction and allow players to jump as much the want and land wherever they want. Nobody will gain any advantage as everybody will have the same opportunity to do the exact same thing.

That is in fact the simplest fix. :clap: It would give a slight advantage to taller players, but being tall is an advantage in a lot of sports, so I would be fine with that. I am sure all of the "get rid of the jump putt because it looks stupid" people would have aneurisms though.

 

[HiFi]

Not quite.

The phrase "At the time of release" in 800.02 defines the status of any given body part as it pertains to subsequent action: it's either a supporting point or a non-supporting point. Since 800.02 explicitly defines supporting points as any body part that is in contact with the playing surface or an object capable of support AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, by definition, any body part that is NOT in contact with one of those surfaces is at the time of release is NOT a supporting point.

The problem in 802.04.D is the inclusion of the phrase "supporting point." If the second sentence said, "Contact with the playing surface or an object closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker discs after the disc has been released is a stance violation" there wouldn't be a problem, but by including the phrase "supporting point," 802.04.D limits the prohibition against contact closer to the target to supporting points: it does NOT prohibit contact by non-supporting points.

Even granting that that is not the rule's intention, in light of the Rules Committee's long-standing and oft-repeated dictum that actions not prohibited in the rules are permitted, the failure to include non-supporting point contact closer to the target when putting in the prohibition implicitly permits such contact.

Good luck arguing that with the other people in your group and with the TD. You can say "technically derp this and derp that" but if you were in my group I would call you on stepping past. If someone else seconds it you just wasted a stroke on "principle" unless the TD just happens to share your view, which in all likelyhood they wouldn't.

 

[JoakimBL]

Unless and until the Rules Committee determines otherwise and/or 802.04.D is revised to remove the permission, that is clearly permissible.



No, it doesn't have to be a mistake, however, given the RC's determination that the examples in the Rules School video in which a non-supporting point makes contact with the playing surface prior to demonstrating full control of balance constitute stance violations, it's more reasonable to infer that they failed to see the problem created by the injecting "supporting point" into the rule than that they knowingly and intentionally decided to permit non-supporting point contact.

I agree 100%. And also agree that it will be close to impossible to get away with it in a tournament. But if for one cannot in good conscience call a fault based on what I may think is a mistake and what the RC intended the rule to be, over how the rule actually is written. This might be the worst mistake found yet in the rules, but is just one of many. The rewrite is just such a horrible job, and I really hope it will be revised before next season.

 

[teemkey]

The phrase "At the time of release" in 800.02 defines the status of any given body part as it pertains to subsequent action: it's either a supporting point or a non-supporting point. Since 800.02 explicitly defines supporting points as any body part that is in contact with the playing surface or an object capable of support AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, by definition, any body part that is NOT in contact with one of those surfaces is at the time of release is NOT a supporting point.

Not true.

802.04(C)
Supporting point contact with or beyond the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting.

According to this rule, supporting points exist after release, and that's the source of this argument.

However, I'd like to point out that while arguing the semantics of the putting rules, we are forgetting their purpose. As I understand it, the purpose of demonstrating balance is to show that the putting motion is completed before the player can advance past the marker disc, unlike throws outside the circle when the throwing motion can be completed past the marker (although the disc must first be released before supporting point contact).

I suppose the reasoning behind this distinction is to avoid the equivalent of a "slam dunk" where the player takes a run-up, and leaps into the air to get closer to the basket. This means the argument would be whether the player's foot (point of contact) was behind the marker ate the time of release -- the jump putt argument).

If that is true, then forcing the player to demonstrate balance after release is an effective deterrent, and provides sufficient latitude for reasonable interpretations regarding whether the putting motion was completed or not.

 

[JoakimBL]

Not true.



According to this rule, supporting points exist after release, and that's the source of this argument.

However, I'd like to point out that while arguing the semantics of the putting rules, we are forgetting their purpose. As I understand it, the purpose of demonstrating balance is to show that the putting motion is completed before the player can advance past the marker disc, unlike throws outside the circle when the throwing motion can be completed past the marker (although the disc must first be released before supporting point contact).

I suppose the reasoning behind this distinction is to avoid the equivalent of a "slam dunk" where the player takes a run-up, and leaps into the air to get closer to the basket. This means the argument would be whether the player's foot (point of contact) was behind the marker ate the time of release -- the jump putt argument).

If that is true, then forcing the player to demonstrate balance after release is an effective deterrent, and provides sufficient latitude for reasonable interpretations regarding whether the putting motion was completed or not.

I agree that supporting points exists after release, but any body part that is not in contact with the playing surface (or other item that provides support) at the time of release is not a supporting point. So if my left foot is in the air at the time of release, then it is not a supporting point, and is allowed to make contact in front of my lie after release.
The only argument against this being 100% legal, is this

[...]The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target.