First and foremost, this topic is not directed AT anyone, but may help some of the Ams to understand something that most Pro's make look easy on their powerful upshots, but which takes a conscious effort for anyone to get right.
Since I have been observing the challenge to play within this rule myself, I better understand (1.)how it adds a greater degree of difficulty to the game, and (2.)how it is violated randomly (however innocently) by many. Just this last week, Doug and I opted to pull out the rule book and start digging into the complexities of this rule ourselves, just for the added clarity.
As the topic implies, this is in regards one's 2nd shot. So I put it forth as a multi choice question.. even though, like I said, I know (all? the) Pros have already gone to some lengths to know it, and get it down pat. On the other hand, it may be an eye-opener to some. In case you don't want to accidentally see the answer.. I pasted it at the bottom.
Jim Pro, John Master, and Grant Grasshopper are playing for $100. On a long par four, Grant Grasshopper had the shortest drive and is next to throw from in the middle of the fairway. The three move as a group to where Grant marks his lie correctly, and prepares for his next shot. Grant intends to launch his 2nd shot with all the power he can muster, so he backs up a few meters behind his marker to allow for an X-step type of run-up that will finish with his lead foot closely behind the line made by the back edge of his marker.
As he unleashes his throw, (let's say, Right handed Backhand) the toe of his right foot lands within three inches of his mini marker and is behind the imaginary line made by the back edge of the marker
However, at the point of release, not one part of his lead foot (or other foot) was directly behind any part of the (3 inch diameter) mini marker itself. Grant's toe of his lead foot simply landed perfectly within three inches of the right side of the marker, without going beyond the marker's back edge.
While Grant is watching his disc fly through the air, Jim declares a stance violation on Grant, and John seconds the call. This is the first time anyone has declared such a violation in the round.
Grant looks down and sees that his foot happened to make a mark on the fairway to show exactly where his entire foot landed, obviously safely behind the line, and the toe was within just three inches of the right side of his marker, (his heel was positioned further away from the right side of his marker than his toe).
What happens next?
A. Grant points to the mark made by his foot, and indicates it is well within the 11.8 inches allowed, and points out that he did not go beyond the line of his marker. Play resumes with no violation.
B. Grant receives a warning, which does not add a stroke, and he plays on.
C. Grant takes a one stroke penalty and plays on.
D. Grant receives a warning, but must re-throw with another disc.
E. Grant receives a warning, but must re-throw, and can opt to use the disc he originally threw for the violation.
.Answer is in rule 803.04-G & H
.(If you want instant feedback, or just want to peek at the answer)
I listed it below..
803.04-G. Any throw that involves a validly called and seconded stance violation may not be used by the thrower. Re-throws must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.
803.04-H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw, except in the case of a putt from within 10 meters.
Any Comments? Questions? Concerns?
Complexities of this have to do with: Who is around when the violation occurs? Frequently there are not two other players around, and any violation requires a 'confirmation' from a second player. (And even then, the rule requires the warning to occur within 3 seconds of the throw)
I was reading somewhere that the PDGA even "considered" making all shots after the tee.. required to be started from a stationary position!
As in no run ups allowed!
so your telling me if I use a mini marker I am losing 5 inches of lateral throwing space?? I have always understood it as the width of your disc and 11.x inches behind it ..??
Nope, there is no width whatsoever to the line of play. You can't be off to the side of the disc, or mini...your plant foot/knee/hand has to be on the imaginary line extending from the basket through the center of the disc or mini.
The only wiggle room would be contained within the width of your FOOT, as only a part of your supporting point needs to be touching the imaginary line (i.e., your foot has to be on the line extending through the exact center of the marker, but the line doesn't need to extend through the exact center of your foot...you could stretch out and get only your toe behind the center of your disc/mini).
Make sense? Of course, in practice, a couple of inches either way will pretty much never get called on full run-up, fairway drive. But if it's a clear-benefit situation (i.e., you're stretching out of a bush and gain a big advantage by moving over those three extra inches to the side of your disc), then you should (and hopefully will) be called on it. Another one I see get called that isn't necessarily a clear-benefit situation is when a few inches is really obvious because the person steps on the back of their disc, raising the front edge off the ground. If you're in my group, I'm probably watching your plant foot, if only out of curiosity about how close you usually come! After having done this for a while I am very impressed with the players that just DON'T screw this up, because it is pretty dang hard to run up at full speed and plant your foot in a tiny space. Next time you see footage of Feldberg, check out how perfectly he does this. As well as following the other stance rules, such as not backing into a bush/tree (maybe the most commonly violated rule out there).
got it! thanks for the clarification.. and on that note, I'll be doing some footwork field work tonight..
As well as following the other stance rules, such as not backing into a bush/tree (maybe the most commonly violated rule out there)
I understand this rule pretty well IMO, but I have wondered what SHOULD be done in certain situations where it seems basically IMPOSSIBLE to throw, staying behind your lie while not touching ANY branches... I guess a good example of this would be when your disc ends up in the small mini forest to left side of hole 6's pin (Blue Mtn). If your drive manages to weasel its way in there.. there is basically no way to get a stance wher your not touching some part of one of the trees/branches... what is the proper ruling and procedure?
I meant to include this pic below of Christian, for a cool example IMO of this very rule being obviously self-enforced.... It is a favorite disc golf picture, not only because of the contortion, but maybe more so because of this rule we are talking about.
I thought it was to be adhered to even on the fairway though...and was becoming hugely impressed with how it sometimes requires us to be athletes who are talented enough to do such contortions of a huge throw, while skillfully ending/launching within a patch of space 11.8 inches by 2 inches. Or say, within a patch of ground, that is the size of a 12 inch ruler laying in line with the basket, right behind one's marker.
Coming from Christian.. that no call would be elicited for violating it on the fairway, because there is no advantage of inches this way or that on the fairway.. makes me feel safer about my own run up. And much less critical of anyone else's for that matter too!
But if indeed the rule is there to keep everyone on their toes (so to speak) about where their foot lands.. then I/we am/are back to square one. :
There is a pretty big difference in mind/body coordination (IMO) between a (innocently) thoughtless run-up and foot-landing, verses a precise run up and foot-landing.
Those that do the precise run up and landing, seem to be at a disadvantage (maybe mostly from mental drift on having to add yet one more thing to focus on) than those who do not do the precise landing.
Plus, there are times when the lie and run up are noticeably different under foot, in one area behind the marker verses the other.. no one may sense an advantage visually off to one side or another foot back.. but the thrower may feel something better under foot.
I thought it was sort of like the foot fault rule/focus required for a long distance jumpers. Run up, jump, but if the foot crosses the line- scratch.
Anyway. Christian.. should I just forget about this rule, when we are in the fairway.. or where any number of inches astray makes no benefit to the thrower, except for just not having to think about it?
...that you shouldn't just forget about the rule, no matter the situation, because it never stops applying. When you're in the fairway, you are simply slightly less likely to be called on an infraction, because you are moving quickly, it's tough to pin down the *exact* point of release and therefore tough to say definitively where your foot/other supporting point was at the relevant split-second. Also, as I mentioned above, you are gaining less of an advantage so there is less incentive to call you on it. In response to my above mention of that, you said:
"There is a pretty big difference in mind/body coordination (IMO) between a (innocently) thoughtless run-up and foot-landing, verses a precise run up and foot-landing. Those that do the precise run up and landing, seem to be at a disadvantage (maybe mostly from mental drift on having to add yet one more thing to focus on) than those who do not do the precise landing."
I'd say this is not completely accurate. I think the key here is that if you are consistent enough with your run-up, the precise landing becomes a thoughtless action. I guarantee Ken Climo simply looks at his mini, adjusts where he's running up from to make sure he has the right amount of ground in between where he starts and where he'll plant his foot, and then just focuses on the target and throws without giving any more thought to where his plant foot hits. He happens to be extremely precise as to his footing, without him focusing on it whatsoever, because it is second nature. If you haven't paid much attention to precise footing before, then of course chances are that you will find it difficult to do so all of a sudden in a tournament situation. But if like Dave or Kenny, you've put in hours and hours and hours of practice on this aspect of your throw (consistency of run-up and spatial awareness), then you are not at a disadvantage. Although I do see where you're coming from, the real folks at a disadvantage are those who haven't ever really paid attention to their footing, and who then commit a foot-fault in a tournament situation and get warned and have to rethrow (without their preferred disc for the shot).
So my recommendation would be to work on throwing correctly behind your mini/disc, in order to make sure you're not commonly foot-faulting on a fairway run-up, and so you can follow the rules without "thinking" about it. As far as calling the rules, first off I'll only say something if I am 100% sure there was an infraction. I will sometimes give an unofficial warning, especially if it was a fairway shot such as we've been talking about, along the lines of "hey man, just noticed that you were off your mini on that last throw, might want to be careful about that." I will also sometimes give an official warning when the player foot-faulted but had a bad throw. This "legal mulligan" is the correct call to make, as they DID foot-fault and you ARE responsible for calling it, they'll be happy that you did since they get to rethrow, and they have then been warned so they'll need to make sure they don't foot-fault again. And of course, sometimes you'll just have to make the call despite it being an awkward situation...you are duty bound to do so. I was called once on a foot-fault in the Zoo Town Open a few years back when my plant foot was to the left of the flag on hole 17 (pebble beach), thereby giving me a clear advantage (you'd rather tee off from a few feet left of the tee). I bristled at the time but it was totally the right call. I called Seth on a foot-fault at the Continental last year that was similar, where I could tell that it would be advantageous for him to stray to the right of his mini on his plant foot, and he left footprint evidence about a foot to the right of his disc. I know he wasn't happy about it at the time but it was also the right call, even if it was in the fairway, and did end up resulting in an extra stroke (his first approach was parked, and second was not).
As far as the backing-into-trees rule, I am frustrated with this one too. Sometimes, indeed, it does seem like there's really not any way to get a foot in there without backing in to a branch or two. But the rule does give some flexibility, because it calls for players to cause the "least" movement:
803.04(2)(D). A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.
I generally agree with what Chuck Kennedy had to say about this: "My perception of how others who try to play by this the rule interpret it is that if they prefer to stand, they will take the standing stance that produces the least movement. In other words, they will straddle versus stand behind their lie if that produces the least movement. They don't feel they need to kneel, even if that would produce less movement. If they do decide kneeling is the better stance for some situation, they will take a kneeling position among several possibilities that results in the least movement. So I'm not sure how to write that more clearly in the rules. But it would seem that people are OK with a person standing, even if they could produce less movement by kneeling or lying on the ground, as long as they take a standing stance that produces the least movement."
So, you simply have to get your foot in there as well as possible, short of calling an unplayable lie and taking a stroke. You figure out how to get in there so you are putting the LEAST amount of pressure possible (not, "no pressure") on the foliage. It seems like Chuck's explanation that I posted above gets it pretty close, although I'd err on the side of more caution (i.e., kneel if the standing stance interferes with the branches).
See if you know this one!
Wee Bob Bjortomt throws a drive that ends up very close to the edge of the circle. In fact, his disc is positioned such that the front edge of the disc is 9.9 meters away from the basket and the back edge is 10.1 meters away from the basket (Elder Damien Sevilla, also on his card, had a very precise tape measure). As everyone knows, Wee Bob is a terrific jump-putter but struggles inside the circle. Which of the following is correct? (I won't spoil it immediately)
A. Wee Bob may either mark his disc with a mini marker or leave it on the ground. In any case, because the front of the disc is at 9.9 meters, and the distance away from the basket does not change simply because of the use (or non-use) of a mini marker, Wee Bob cannot jump-putt.
B. Wee Bob may either mark his disc with a mini marker or leave it on the ground. In any case, because the back of the disc is beyond 10 meters, and the distance away from the basket does not change simply because of the use (or non-use) of a mini marker, Wee Bob can jump-putt.
C. Wee Bob may either mark his disc with a mini marker or leave it on the ground. In any case, because the front of the disc is at 9.9 meters, and using a mini would change his lie but would only bring him closer to the basket, Wee Bob cannot jump-putt.
D. Wee Bob may either mark his disc with a mini marker or leave it on the ground. If he marks it with a mini, he will be inside the circle and cannot jump putt, because the back of his mini is at 9.9 meters away from the basket. If he leaves the disc as it is, he may jump putt because the back of his disc is outside 10 meters.
E. Wee Bob may either mark his disc with a mini marker or leave it on the ground. If he marks it with a mini, he will be inside the circle unless he takes a stance outside 10m, by using the 11 inches (30 cm) behind the marker that he is allowed. By doing so, he will be able to jump-putt. (And of course he may jump-putt if he leaves the disc as is).
Don't forget that a foot fault, if called by a member of the group, must be seconded by another member of the group for it to be valid. No second = no violation. The only time that this is not the case is a courtesy violation which needs no second for a violation to be called and penalty to be assessed.
Another common instance where you see an unintentional foot fault is when a player is kneeling or really trying to reach around an obstacle. They often put their foot down in what would be a legal stance, then while stretching to reach around the obstacle, lift up the back part of their foot leaving only their toes making contact with the surface - usually a couple inches to the side of the line of play. Usually innocent, but...
I've noticed at least one MT'er watching and calling "foot" before a player's shot to give an unofficial warning before the shot to players who are unintentially foot faulting. I think this is a great way to make a player aware that he/she may be foot faulting without causing the awkward situation after the shot of actually calling a violation.
As a freshly minted, newbie TD, I'll "jump" into this.
Wouldn't the 9.9 vs 10.1 meters be measured strictly from the back edge of the marker (or the disc, depending on which one he uses) to the basket?
If so, then wouldn't the distance from the back edge of the disc left in place, to the basket, be 10.1 meters.. allowing Wee Bob to jump putt? And if it helps him to win the tourney in a sudden death playoff, then shouldn't he unofficially consider buying Elder Damien Sevilla a sixpack of his favorite brew, for carrying such an excellent measuring device?
On the other hand, if Wee Bob uses a marker.. and from its back edge to the basket is 9.9 meters, then wouldn't he be restricted from jump putting?.. even if he takes a stance legally outside the circle, using the 11.8 inches allowed the marker?
It's still measured simply from back edge of the marker/disc to the basket.
As I was looking at this 10 meter rule, it occurred to me that I may not be acutely aware of what it means to measure to the "base of the hole". Does this mean, measure to the pole where it goes into the ground, (and on a portable basket- measure to the pole nearest the ground, and ignore the support stand on the ground?)
yes to the pole where it hits the ground. So if you were pacing it off, you would start with your hips hitting the middle of the basket device, and not with your back to the basket.