Pet Peeve: foot fault run ups

[_MTL_]

I agree that designers get to over punitive. But you can't make up rules to avoid it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I agree that designers get to over punitive. But you can't make up rules to avoid it.

A re-throw is already a penalty and does not necessarily avoid additional penalties. It does allow those who think they have the skill to potentially get a lower score. This actually improves scoring spread and maintains tighter battles and drama based on better skill and course management.

 

[_MTL_]

Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, I don't see it being legal.

I'll see what Conrad says.

 

[Steve West]

I agree that designers get to over punitive. But you can't make up rules to avoid it.

Chuck can't. The PDGA could.

 

[_MTL_]

Just thought of something. Hole 5 USDGC.

I slip and the disc has no chance of being dry.

Practice throw!

 

[Cgkdisc]

Just thought of something. Hole 5 USDGC.

I slip and the disc has no chance of being dry.

Practice throw!

BTW, in 2008 and 2009, that's how many hazards were played at USDGC, maybe even the hole 5 water hazard. We'd have to check. What I'm suggesting is that the re-throw buncr rule tried there would eventually become a default option you can take from any lie but only right after you make a poor throw OR your group calls and seconds a foot fault (no more warnings).

 

[_MTL_]

BTW, in 2008 and 2009, that's how many hazards were played at USDGC, maybe even the hole 5 water hazard. We'd have to check. What I'm suggesting is that the re-throw buncr rule tried there would eventually become a default option you can take from any lie but only right after you make a poor throw OR your group calls and seconds a foot fault (no more warnings).

The one time I played USDGC, every OB throw, including water, was a penalty free re-throw.

And I hated it.

I'm ok with it on certain holes - but not when I throw in the middle of a lake.

Side note, that has nothing to do with your argument.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Throwing in a lake is penalty enough losing equipment. What other sport takes your fundamental playing gear from you? Not only that, it's hard to replace some discs with new replacements. Balls, bats and hockey sticks don't count.

 

[_MTL_]

Throwing in a lake is penalty enough losing equipment. What other sport takes your fundamental playing gear from you? Not only that, it's hard to replace some discs with new replacements. Balls, bats and hockey sticks don't count.

Once again, nothing to do with the topic of your idea that is completely illegal and borderline cheating.

 

[JC17393]

For the record, I can see Chuck's argument about the practice throw thing being a reasonable method to solve the foot fault/no self calling issue since it would amount to a self foot-fault call with no warning (just a penalty) and no need for a second. HOWEVER, there is zero support for it in the current rules.

In the current rule book, the applicable rule for such a scenario (wanting to re-throw from the lie instead of from the result of the first throw) is the optional re-throw rule. That is why some are citing the (mis)use of the practice throw rule as being unfair and cheating despite it carrying a penalty...it is still a lesser penalty than the proper rule for the situation.

Re-write the optional re-throw rule to fit, or re-write the stance rules to fit, but in the meantime, there's no support for Chuck's method in the rules.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not saying the Optional Re-throw or Relief rules should be changed but the Throw Again rule be added. The Optional Re-throw and Optional Relief would have to be invoked once you have left your lie and found your disc or the last point IB. You get penalized for making that "late" decision near your new potential lie versus deciding to Throw Again right away at your lie after the bad throw. The extra penalty for Optional Re-throw/Relief would essentially become like a "delay of game" penalty.

TDs can test the equivalent of this Throw Again idea right now under Special Conditions where a casual type hazard (buncr) requires going to a drop zone which they would define as your previous lie, 805.03B. Unclear whether a waiver would even be required the way that rule is written. This Throw Again option has already been successfully tested in some other events for buncr hazards and even for other hazards like water and mandos. In every case analyzed, the scoring spread was tighter and more like a non-penalty hole than one with extra punishment like say hole 17 at Winthrop. The smoothest scoring spread that hole had was during 2008-9 when the buncr re-throw rule was used versus tacking on the extra penalty with the current optional re-throw format.

 

[_MTL_]

I'm not saying the Optional Re-throw or Relief rules should be changed but the Throw Again rule be added. The Optional Re-throw and Optional Relief would have to be invoked once you have left your lie and found your disc or the last point IB. You get penalized for making that "late" decision near your new potential lie versus deciding to Throw Again right away at your lie after the bad throw. The extra penalty for Optional Re-throw/Relief would essentially become like a "delay of game" penalty.

TDs can test the equivalent of this Throw Again idea right now under Special Conditions where a casual type hazard (buncr) requires going to a drop zone which they would define as your previous lie, 805.03B. Unclear whether a waiver would even be required the way that rule is written. This Throw Again option has already been successfully tested in some other events for buncr hazards and even for other hazards like water and mandos. In every case analyzed, the scoring spread was tighter and more like a non-penalty hole than one with extra punishment like say hole 17 at Winthrop. The smoothest scoring spread that hole had was during 2008-9 when the buncr re-throw rule was used versus tacking on the extra penalty with the current optional re-throw format.

::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

We aren't talking about when it's designated for everyone to do it. We are talking about in normal play when the TD says nothing about it.

 

[Ye Olde Am]

I'm not saying the Optional Re-throw or Relief rules should be changed but the Throw Again rule be added. The Optional Re-throw and Optional Relief would have to be invoked once you have left your lie and found your disc or the last point IB. You get penalized for making that "late" decision near your new potential lie versus deciding to Throw Again right away at your lie after the bad throw. The extra penalty for Optional Re-throw/Relief would essentially become like a "delay of game" penalty.

TDs can test the equivalent of this Throw Again idea right now under Special Conditions where a casual type hazard (buncr) requires going to a drop zone which they would define as your previous lie, 805.03B. Unclear whether a waiver would even be required the way that rule is written. This Throw Again option has already been successfully tested in some other events for buncr hazards and even for other hazards like water and mandos. In every case analyzed, the scoring spread was tighter and more like a non-penalty hole than one with extra punishment like say hole 17 at Winthrop. The smoothest scoring spread that hole had was during 2008-9 when the buncr re-throw rule was used versus tacking on the extra penalty with the current optional re-throw format.

How would a "Throw Again" be differentiated from a provisional in your proposed rule?

 

[Cgkdisc]

How would a "Throw Again" be differentiated from a provisional in your proposed rule?

Your first throw counts and your Throw Again is your next live shot. No provisional.

 

[Ye Olde Am]

Your first throw counts and your Throw Again is your next live shot. No provisional.

Consider the WR Jackson short holes where an unlucky roll puts you OB. However, you can't see where the disc came to rest from the tee (assume no spotter).

That seems to be the situation where you believe where OB over penalized (is that right?). But the player has to advance up the fairway to know whether their disc came to rest IB or OB, so the "Throw Again" (as described) would not apply.

It's worth noting that if the disc is OB (and no spotter), it's a crap shoot to determine where it should be marked.

I think this situation would be a better model to use in crafting a "Throw Again" rule. Basically getting the speed of play advantage of a provisional while eliminating the OB mark guess work.

 

[Steve West]

(Play music that is a cross between The Twilight Zone and Willy Wonka.)

"Welcome to the land of Special Conditions, where every rule you can imagine is already in the rule book!"

 

[araytx]

To which I would reply, "so why not call it?" If he's going to make it anyway, no harm done to his round. If he's going to make it anyway, no one's a "bad guy" for making a legitimate call. Talk about a prime opportunity to demonstrate that the best players in the world know and actually follow the rules. What a joke.

This is the problem. Everyone sees it's a fault, including the player (who's asking for it to be called), yet they're still choosing not to call it. And we wonder why everyone gets upset and accusatory when a player dares to actually make an honest call.

JC, I'm with you. I think all faults should be called. That same round Nate Doss called Lance Brown on one, wherein he also clearly slipped, and that WAS THE RIGHT THING to do. I was just describing it (above) to people who may not have seen it. But, yes, I agree with you -- they should be called. Without exception. I just don't get the reasoning that this single rule is the one you get to not call if you don't feel like it.

 

[araytx]

S&D wouldn't solve the issue presented by this incident with Wysocki at Worlds. It was on a putt. It was a falling putt within the 10-meter circle. No run-up involved at all. It wasn't a nit-picky, only really perceptible on video violation. It was a blatant (albeit unintentional) falling putt that the player himself acknowledged but was powerless to do anything about even if he wants to.

This isn't a rules issue, it's an enforcement issue, and it's always been an enforcement issue. Too many gutless and/or lazy players who don't want to be "that" guy and call a violation when it happens. It's one thing when it's a local C-tier on the bottom card of MA2 or something, and people can shrug it off as "no big deal". It's quite another when you're talking about the lead card at one of, if not the most prestigious tournament in the world. There really is no room for "if this were a 'serious' tournament, I'd call it" kinds of arguments.

This would partially be solved if you could call yourself for the fault. I think most people would have the integrity to call themselves if they knew that they had committed a foot fault. If most people called themselves, than there would be a lot less instances where you're put in the awkward situation of having to be the jerk who calls it on someone else.

If you make a bad put and know it, you can "fall" forward. Whoops I foot faulted! Get a second chance.

Super dirty, but I'm sure there's lots of people who would be tempted.

ON all of these arguments, especially Chuck's, let's assume enough players thought the 1-throw penalty "self-called foot fault" was the direction that they wanted to go. WHY then game the rules and call it a "practice throw"? Why not just make the rule, that a self-called foot fault/stance violation is a one-throw penalty?

 

[JoakimBL]

The "Throw again rule" would essentially eliminate the point of OB. Why would you ever take the OB penalty, unless the resulting lie would be better than what you could achieve from the tee? If you (primarily Chuck) feel that the current OB rules are too punitive, then lobby for them to be changed instead of this insanity, that borderline removes the concept of playing it were it lies. Think of "Death putts" for instance. So what if I don't make it and roll 200 feet away, I can just try again, essentially eliminating the need to ever make a difficult comeback putt. That same goes with calling FF on yourself without the need for a second, unless it would be required to be called before the result of the throw is known (as in instantly)

 

[rhatton1]

The "Throw again rule" would essentially eliminate the point of OB. Why would you ever take the OB penalty, unless the resulting lie would be better than what you could achieve from the tee? If you (primarily Chuck) feel that the current OB rules are too punitive, then lobby for them to be changed instead of this insanity, that borderline removes the concept of playing it were it lies. Think of "Death putts" for instance. So what if I don't make it and roll 200 feet away, I can just try again, essentially eliminating the need to ever make a difficult comeback putt. That same goes with calling FF on yourself without the need for a second, unless it would be required to be called before the result of the throw is known (as in instantly)

Agreed, but for me OB rules are good and fine as is. Overuse from the Course designers and more often the TD's trying to trick up a course is the issue.

Why come up with a fix for a problem that changes the game and concept of always moving forward in favour of educating and improving course design? The reason so much OB rope is used these days is because of the highly publicised use of it at USDGC. If our top tournaments start finding better ways to challenge the competitors than miles of OB, others will follow suit and you won't need a rule that allows the player to get around the usage. Natural feature OB's are one thing laid rope/lines on fairways is another.

Top tournament layouts and ideas are copied over and over by other TD's and designers. Let's change the top level so the others follow. (and have a PDGA insistence that no majors are allowed to have holes crossing paths,play equipment, sports facilities or other dangerous design features whilst we are at it but that's another bugbear of mine....)