You're gonna be surprised when you look up the definition of "propulsion." (It means make something go forward.)
-
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)
Throw or Drop
- Thread starter cheesethin
- Start date
You're gonna be surprised when you look up the definition of "propulsion." (It means make something go forward.)
Hmmm. Perhaps my understanding of the word "context" is different as well. Otherwise, by what you're telling me, THIS ˅˅˅↓↓ isn't propulsion:
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
Not by the definition of propulsion:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/propulsion
dmoore1998
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 961
But then you have to look at the definition of "forward", one of which is "in the direction that one is traveling"...so you're always traveling forward.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
If it's only a "throw" when propelled toward the basket, throwing backwards when pitching out of the woods wouldn't count?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,840
Talk about an unlikely hypothetical situation! Every player I've seen believes if they just throw hard enough, the disc will get through toward the target.
If you're hanging your hat on that, there's not much else to say. I don't think I'll ever agree to that.
But I'll give you three things to think about and then I'm out.
1. I prefer Merriam Webster. More accurate, not as snotty. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propel
2. Even if so, "forward" is a direction that changes as our body angle and direction changes. A scant minority of BH throws are release while facing the direction you may call "forward". It can be argued that, at the time of release, that WAS forward.
3. As the Supreme Court said when prompted to "define" pornography, "we may not be able to put it into a nice clean definition, but we know it when I see it." In other words, old-fashioned common sense. Seeing the car in reverse, that's propulsion. And seeing Lisa's throw, that' propulsion.
Btw, what is your opinion of Brady's career altering moment? Objectively, I mean, please don't invoke NFL.
802.01 Throw
A. A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position.
Seems like the definition has two criteria and qualification preposition.
To me the release did not occur with the intent of changing the disc position.
A. A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position.
Seems like the definition has two criteria and qualification preposition.
To me the release did not occur with the intent of changing the disc position.
fumble.
dmoore1998
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 961
Honestly I don't know how I feel about it...I keep going back and forth...but would you feel differently if she'd "tried" to hold on it but was unsuccessful and ended up throwing it behind her 200 feet instead of a foot? Specifically thinking...if my "intent" is to not change it's position because i'm trying to keep hold of it, but simply fail and launch it...does that matter?
I say that as someone who has occasionally clipped my front foot on my x-step, stumbled a bit, thought "just don't throw" but haven't been able to stop myself from releasing the disc and having it still go pretty far. My intent was to hold onto it for a split second in my head, I just wasn't physically able to do it (I'm actually kind of impressed anytime someone does a full arm swing and is able to keep hold of the disc, that's so hard to do).
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
I just brought up that definition of propulsion. I think the PDGA rules should define that term or better explain it. The USGA (ball golf) rule book has a definition section so their is less confusion about what is meant by a specific term. I will say that if a throw is the propulsion of a disc AND propulsion is a forward movement.....I'm throwing Pat Pending more often.
As for Brady....he had never shown he had the ability to 'fake throw' the ball at full speed and still hold onto the ball (see several of Ben Rothlisberger's fake pump throws). So Brady attempted to throw the ball and it came loose - by my understanding of the rules at the time of the incident, that's a fumble. But then, the NFL has trouble understanding its rules....I mean, how many times has a catch been overturned?
But those ideas cut both ways. Supposed you're teeing off & stumble/clip your foot and try hard as heck to hold on... but your body just can't. The disc slips out of your hand and still goes pretty far, in fact, it smashes dead center chains for a hole-in-one. Are you gonna say, "hold up guys, that shouldn't count, I was trying to hold up"??? OR -- do you accept the screams, high fives, celebration, and Ace Pot money? We all know the answer.
So let's not let the outcome be the determining factor.
It was a fumble. And I think Brady even said on the most recent 30 for 30, that if they don't overturn the fumble (meaning New England loses because they were out of time outs), that he likely WOULD NOT have been the starting QB next year.
The replay official changed football history.
And if it's a fumble then how is faikus not a drop instead of throw?
Because we don't have a "tuck" rule. In our case, as in the NFL's, imho, it is the player's responsibility to protect his/her own interests. If he/she doesn't l, then they have to accept the consequence and not get "bailed out" by a rule that defies C.S.
Again the Supreme Court "pornography" philosophy. I don't have to define "propulsion" because we all know it when we see it.
The propulsion phase ended prior to the release. Granted it is split second timing but it was not propulsion AND release with intent to move the disc. It was propulsion, STOP. Release.
I wouldn't fall on my sword about this if we were on the course, but nothing anyone has said has convinced me that it was a throw and not a drop.
In fact, nobody has really made a meaningful attempt to explain why it is a throw.
If as you say—you know it when you see it, then you know Lisa didn't intend to throw that disc after her foot slipped.
BUT, it is a game. Rules are arbitrary. As this rule is written, that was not a throw IMO.
I understand. I get your point of view. You asked my opinion and I gave it, and I'd like to believe I gave a few good examples -- particularly the one to dmoore about trying to hold up but you can't and the disc comes out of your hand, and voila! It smashes chains! If you are falling on the sword on that one Lisa had wasn't a throw because "she didn't intend to let go (throw),because she was trying to hold on," then you surely must say that my example is not a hole-in-one either -- it's a, well ...nothing.
I said I'm NOT falling on my sword. On the course I would accept the call that it was a throw if that's how the card saw it.
BUT, we aren't on the course and the issue is all about timing. The rule is Propulsion AND release with intent. She completed the propulsion effort--her hand came to a stop at the end of her follow through and was actually starting to recover, then she dropped the disc. If the disc comes out a split second earlier, then it is a throw, even if accidental. If the release is not part of the propulsion motion then it is not a throw.
I don't expect anyone to necessarily see that in real time on the course, but, since we have the option to view it, slow it down and see fairly precisely what occurred, we can make a precise assessment as well. It doesn't change anything about what happened.
Ultimately, your point seems to parallel the tuck rule. Any release of the ball (disc) is a throw. But, then you say no, that should have been a fumble. Disc golf doesn't have fumbles, but it is acknowledged a player may drop a disc and it not be considered a throw.
dmoore1998
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 961
That's why I think the "intent" part is so hard to judge. Intent only lives in someone's mind. I always tend to err on the side that "throw counts" mostly because the intent on the runup was pretty clearly to make a legal throw (or in the case of no runup, the intent when the motion started was to throw it). Compare that to someone like Dickerson who makes a pretty decent arm swing, but clearly isn't intending that to be his throw, just a routine. It seems a lot easier to judge "intent" on whether the motion was intended to be a throw, as opposed to whether the release of the disc is intentional or not.
That's where I can't decide what I think about Fajkus. I don't see a clear end to her motion, then a drop. I see a release of her disc at the very end of her motion like a total griplock, like she intended not to throw it but maybe did. For me at least, I don't know where to stop it from "super griplock" to "held onto it then dropped it after the fact".
dmoore1998
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2021
- Messages
- 961
I think this is the correct way to view throw vs not-throw. I'm just not sure I see that her propulsion motion had stopped. In real time, I definitely didn't think it had stopped if we're talking about making rulings on the course.
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
Personally, if that happened on my card or I was an official....I would ask everyone...did you think the player intended to throw? If not, well there you go. If it is split...benefit of the doubt goes to the player.
That type of thing you can't make a "hard and fast" rule for. Intent is only known by the player; others can only guess at the intent. Look at Kevin Jones 'falling' ACE. He slipped on the tee pad as he was releasing his disc. Did he intend to release it? Or did it just come out as he fell? If there was a "hard and fast" rule that a disc released while falling isn't a throw, then his ace wouldn't have counted (if the rule existed then).
The bad part about intent and falling/slipping....a player can say they didn't intend to throw if the results are bad and say they did intend it if the results are good. This is one of those cases where we have to accept what the player says, unless it is obvious they threw the disc.
That type of thing you can't make a "hard and fast" rule for. Intent is only known by the player; others can only guess at the intent. Look at Kevin Jones 'falling' ACE. He slipped on the tee pad as he was releasing his disc. Did he intend to release it? Or did it just come out as he fell? If there was a "hard and fast" rule that a disc released while falling isn't a throw, then his ace wouldn't have counted (if the rule existed then).
The bad part about intent and falling/slipping....a player can say they didn't intend to throw if the results are bad and say they did intend it if the results are good. This is one of those cases where we have to accept what the player says, unless it is obvious they threw the disc.
