Pet Peeve: foot fault run ups

[_MTL_]

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)

EXACTLY!

 

[Steve West]

Wouldn't the failure to call Ricky's falling putt be something that could result in action against the rest of the group?

"3.3 Player Misconduct B. 11. Overt failure or refusal to enforce the rules of disc golf during competition."

Or, do the rules about not ignoring rules also get ignored?

 

[DG_player]

Wouldn't the failure to call Ricky's falling putt be something that could result in action against the rest of the group?

"3.3 Player Misconduct B. 11. Overt failure or refusal to enforce the rules of disc golf during competition."

Or, do the rules about not ignoring rules also get ignored?

Clearly this is the applicable rule that could have been applied. I'm not saying it should have been in this case, since the non-call had no ultimate effect on the tournament, the players may have been unaware that they are required to call foot faults, and there was clearly no malicious intent involved. However, the PDGA should make it a point of emphasis of letting the players and TDs know going forward they have a duty to enforce the rules and any future such failures would result in 3.3 being applied.

The other problem though is, how do deal with the throwing player? Theoretically he could take a provisional putt I suppose for the fault. What if he doesn't though?

Imagine this scenario:

The fault goes uncalled, and later Ricky takes another fault that is called, and ends up winning by a single stroke. If the first had actually been called he would end up tied due to the penalty added to the second. What could the TD even do in this case to correct it?

 

[JC17393]

Clearly this is the applicable rule that could have been applied. I'm not saying it should have been in this case, since the non-call had no ultimate effect on the tournament, the players may have been unaware that they are required to call foot faults, and there was clearly no malicious intent involved. However, the PDGA should make it a point of emphasis of letting the players and TDs know going forward they have a duty to enforce the rules and any future such failures would result in 3.3 being applied.

Ignorance of the rules in no excuse for breaking them (or for choosing not to enforce them). And you can not convince me that these veteran players, playing on the lead card at the World Championships, are ignorant of the fact that they are obligated to call violations when they see them. They know. They just don't care because the culture of our game is to ignore all violations unless there's an advantage to be gained by calling them. Guarantee that if calling Ricky's falling putt meant Ricky getting an extra throw added to his score (rather than just a warning), nobody would hesitate to call it.

 

[_MTL_]

Guarantee that if calling Ricky's falling putt meant Ricky getting an extra throw added to his score (rather than just a warning), nobody would hesitate to call it.

The irony is under the current rules, you have to call someone for a non-penalty in this situation before getting to the actual penalty.

 

[JC17393]

The irony is under the current rules, you have to call someone for a non-penalty in this situation before getting to the actual penalty.

Kind of my point. Eliminate the warning for the first offense and I think we might see an increase in players making the calls when they see violations. Certainly would eliminate the "oh, you'd have made the re-throw anyway so what's the difference?" excuse. Not to mention eliminating the "I don't want to give you a free mulligan" excuse, too.

 

[_MTL_]

Kind of my point. Eliminate the warning for the first offense and I think we might see an increase in players making the calls when they see violations. Certainly would eliminate the "oh, you'd have made the re-throw anyway so what's the difference?" excuse. Not to mention eliminating the "I don't want to give you a free mulligan" excuse, too.

Yeah, I knew that was your point.

Call me 50/50 on the penalty free first time.

I agree, more calls need to be made and making them all penalties would do that. However, I think it would lead to more issues, arguments and collusion.

 

[Steve West]

Collusion? How?

 

[_MTL_]

Collusion? How?

"Bob. Me and John are tied. I'll give you 20 bucks to second this foot fault call on his final putt so he get's a penalty and I Win."

 

[JC17393]

"Bob. Me and John are tied. I'll give you 20 bucks to second this foot fault call on his final putt so he get's a penalty and I Win."

And that type of collusion isn't already possible with the rules as they are? What's stopping you from setting that up earlier in the round simply by calling John on a foot fault (first call just a warning and re-throw with no second required). Then when you offer the $20 to Bob to second your call on the final putt, it carries that tiebreaking penalty so you can win. Sorry, not buying the concerns of collusion as a reason to keep the warning aspect of the rule, particularly while the warning requires no second.

While I think initially removing the warning will increase the calls made, I think eventually it would lessen. The biggest reason is if more players are actually calling foot faults and falling putts, more players would actually concentrate on throwing without committing such violations. In the long run, it might actually improve players' skills since, from my observations over the years, hitting the mark properly and staying behind the mark while in the circle is not something that is practiced well or often enough.

 

[Ye Olde Am]

Collusion? How?

Two players simply don't like another player on the card (Frodo and Merry want to inflate Sauron's score and maybe push Sauron to destroy the course and get DQ'd);

Card mates favor another player on the card and don't call violations (Frodo and Merry don't make a call against Pippin because otherwise Sauron might win).

 

[Steve West]

"Bob. Me and John are tied. I'll give you 20 bucks to second this foot fault call on his final putt so he get's a penalty and I Win."

My question should have been" "MORE collusion? How?"

 

[_MTL_]

And that type of collusion isn't already possible with the rules as they are? What's stopping you from setting that up earlier in the round simply by calling John on a foot fault (first call just a warning and re-throw with no second required). Then when you offer the $20 to Bob to second your call on the final putt, it carries that tiebreaking penalty so you can win. Sorry, not buying the concerns of collusion as a reason to keep the warning aspect of the rule, particularly while the warning requires no second.

While I think initially removing the warning will increase the calls made, I think eventually it would lessen. The biggest reason is if more players are actually calling foot faults and falling putts, more players would actually concentrate on throwing without committing such violations. In the long run, it might actually improve players' skills since, from my observations over the years, hitting the mark properly and staying behind the mark while in the circle is not something that is practiced well or often enough.

No doubt collusion can and probably has happened. I'm simply saying that a first time issue creating a penalty increases those chances as you only have to convince someone once to do it.

 

[Steve West]

...In the long run, it might actually improve players' skills since, from my observations over the years, hitting the mark properly and staying behind the mark while in the circle is not something that is practiced well or often enough.

And it makes for better throws when you hit your mark. People let their feet land off-line and wonder why they are not accurate.

 

[Steve West]

No doubt collusion can and probably has happened. I'm simply saying that a first time issue creating a penalty increases those chances as you only have to convince someone once to do it.

At least you need to involve a second person when it's a penalty. It's far more unlikely for two people to cheat than one.

 

[_MTL_]

At least you need to involve a second person when it's a penalty. It's far more unlikely for two people to cheat than one.

True.

 

[DanJon]

What about players who are on the same team?

I've heard that certain companies offer bonuses when the top 2, 3, whatever finishers are their players.

Or what if Johnny Up-and-Coming is playing on a card with his fellow teammate, Bob SuperPro?

Do you think they might be inclined to go along with their suspect calls?

 

[steadyrockabilly]

The proper way to define stand and deliver is that the foot behind your mark must remain in contact with the playing surface until balance is demonstrated. I throw this way often and it puts no more stress on the knees than an X-step.

As someone who has had over 10 knee surgeries on both knees and who has had to work on my form in order to be able to play, I can attest to this. God form is required, for both stand-still and run-up shots, if you want to protect your knees. it is definitely strictly beneficial to your run-up if you learn a balanced stand-still shot.

 

[steadyrockabilly]

My point is that there simply is no down-side to being forced to learn a good stand-still.

 

[PoorPutter]

The proper way to define stand and deliver is that the foot behind your mark must remain in contact with the playing surface until balance is demonstrated.

That wording alone doesn't prevent a run-up.

To prevent a run-up, you have to implement some sort of balk rule, right? Like, once you have a contact point behind your mark, you must come to a state of "no forward motion" before you begin your shot. Or something like that?