Barsby's putt--falling or no?

[REDFIVE]

A falling putt was not called so it wasn't a falling putt.

[ChUcK]

I just saw the video for the first time without reading the thread first, and that, in the moment, was absolutely a stance violation. However, there's no arguing with Red5- it was not a falling putt because it wasn't called/seconded by a player or official. If I was on Barsby's card, I would have called it instantly.

And NWdiscer, quote the part of the rulebook that even remotely mentions the slightest connection between "stance violation" and "disc at rest". Exactly- the connection doesn't exist. People have tried to defend their falling putts to me before using that same creative logic, usually right after performing a creative arm-windmilling dance, like a referee calling a field goal over, and over, and over... they lost the argument, too.

[Scott]

I just had my first chance to finally watch the video. That was not a falling putt. If standing on one foot and reaching down to pick up the mini isn't showing balance then I don't know what is.

[Trozzle!!!]

I think his body was still in a somewhat foreward motion towards the basket, so he didnt show complete balance, but since no one on his card called him on it, its not a big deal. In this case, its not a "called" falling putt.

[REDFIVE]

I don't think the discussion is whether or not it was a falling putt but rather what is a falling putt.

[D-Walk]

Originally Posted by REDFIVE

I don't think the discussion is whether or not it was a falling putt but rather what is a falling putt.

Funny, and all this time I thought this discussion was about disc videos! That's what I get for reading the thread title. I could have sworn that there was a different thread for this very topic.

Let's keep the sweet videos rolling in.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Scott

I just had my first chance to finally watch the video. That was not a falling putt. If standing on one foot and reaching down to pick up the mini isn't showing balance then I don't know what is.

You = not understanding the rules.

[NWDiscer]

Originally Posted by ChUcK

And NWdiscer, quote the part of the rulebook that even remotely mentions the slightest connection between "stance violation" and "disc at rest". Exactly- the connection doesn't exist. People have tried to defend their falling putts to me before using that same creative logic, usually right after performing a creative arm-windmilling dance, like a referee calling a field goal over, and over, and over... they lost the argument, too.

so chuck just how long should some1 have to show balance ????

if not only till the disc comes to rest??

[ChUcK]

Originally Posted by NWDiscer

so chuck just how long should some1 have to show balance ????

if not only till the disc comes to rest??

Check your PMs, I spelled it out for you. Have you ever read a PDGA rulebook?

Tennessee, keep making videos. The fact that we have such a lengthy discussion going over this indicated that you are taking great footage and editing it well. Props!

[NWDiscer]

Originally Posted by ChUcK

Check your PMs, I spelled it out for you. Have you ever read a PDGA rulebook?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWDiscer View Post
so chuck just how long should some1 have to show balance ????

if not only till the disc comes to rest??



All you have to do is demonstrate full control of balance before advancing towards the hole. You could be in the circle, throw a towering spike hyzer 300 ft in the air, and step towards the basket before the disc even reached its apex, as long as you have demonstrated full control of balance before advancing towards the hole.

So you are saying that in the circle i can throw a spike hyzer str8 up in the air then move forward over my mini????before my disc hits the basket or the ground

That is incorrect sir.


I do not see why this is so confusing to you. The murky part of the rule is what constitutes a show of balance, not whether or not the disc is at rest. This issue has nothing to do with the status of the disc.
(repeat after me)
This issue has nothing to do with the status of the disc.
This issue has nothing to do with the status of the disc.
This issue has nothing to do with the status of the disc.

how can it not have anything to do with the status of the disc while it is in flight?

.

Barsby's putt should have been called/seconded because he putted and advanced towards the hole in the same motion with no display of balance. Sure, he is athletic enough to keep from falling and turn it into a display of grace after he moved towards the hole, but the video doesn't lie- he turned his fall into a mini pickup.

you contradict yourself with this statement

[TYVEK]

Originally Posted by NWDiscer

So you are saying that in the circle i can throw a spike hyzer str8 up in the air then move forward over my mini????before my disc hits the basket or the ground

That is incorrect sir.

yes that is correct. if you have displayed full control and balance it doesnt matter if you disc is 2 feet in the air or 250 feet in the air. the only thing the rule book covers is that a player must display balance before progressing past your lie. it has nothing to do with your thrown disc and where it is.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sam

You = not understanding the rules.

I disagree. I think that we have a disagreeement about what constitutes a full display of balance.

[Sam]

Leaning on one foot, flailing with one's arms and turning it into a "let's grab the mini and look natural" is not a display of balance. Should have been called and seconded.

[Sam]

803.04
C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc
to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the
thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the
marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

The only way that this would not have been a falling putt is if he picked up the mini from the back edge and didn't have any contact with any other part of the mini. The mini is actually between the mark and the basket and would constitute a "point closer to the hole than the rear edge" of said mini. Further, it definitely appears as if the picking up of the mini steadied him and made it so that he did not fall. This is a clear violation of the stance rule above and should have been called and seconded as a falling putt.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sam

The only way that this would not have been a falling putt is if he picked up the mini from the back edge and didn't have any contact with any other part of the mini.

OR if it is agreed that he showed a full control of balance.

Leaning forward while standing on one leg with the other leg fully extended is an act of balance. Why do you think it is used in sobriety tests?

OK... I will stipulate that it is close. Since there is no instant replay rule in the PDGA I will borrow the rule from the NFL: There must be conslusive video evidence to overturn the call (or non call). To me, it was inconclusive whether or not he was picking up the disc or using it to balance. If it's inconclusive, then the (non)call stands.

[Sam]

There is conclusive evidence. If he touched anything but the very back edge of his mini before showing balance - and that is there on the tape - it is a falling putt.

By the way... you do realize that he would have had to stand there for 10 seconds with his head tilted back and his arms outstretched for your sobriety test analogy to hold any water, right?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sam

There is conclusive evidence. If he touched anything but the very back edge of his mini before showing balance - and that is there on the tape - it is a falling putt.

By the way... you do realize that he would have had to stand there for 10 seconds with his head tilted back and his arms outstretched for your sobriety test analogy to hold any water, right?

No, no, no..... Read this slowly. It doesn't matter if he touches the front or back of the mini because he shows balance (barely) through the act of leaning over.

Standing with head back and arms stetched out is only one type of sobriety test. Another is to stand on one foot and lean over to pick up an object that is right in front of you. Trust me on this one.

[Sam]

The act of leaning over is NOT showing balance, Scott. Especially when flailing one's arms.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[keys]

Originally Posted by Sam

There is conclusive evidence. If he touched anything but the very back edge of his mini before showing balance - and that is there on the tape - it is a falling putt.

If you have not yet displayed balance, touching the marker is a stance violation as you have just crossed the imaginary plane behind the the rear edge of the marker to touch it. They may have been what you meant by very back edge of the mini.


I myself believe Barsby didn't foot fault although it was close. In my eyes Barsby had full control of balance. The rule needs to be rewritten to take "control of balance" out of the definition as people aren't going to agree on what is controlled and what isn't. I kind of like the idea of just staying behind your marker until the disc has come to rest, or has rolled/flew outside the circle.

[ChUcK]

Originally Posted by keys

I kind of like the idea of just staying behind your marker until the disc has come to rest, or has rolled/flew outside the circle.

Not bad, but not perfect, either. If someone can windmill their arms in order to stay behind the marker until their putt is at rest in the basket, and then they fall over, it's not a very impressive putting display.

Besides, the whole point of the 3-second limit for calling a stance violation is so the outcome of the putt (at rest in the basket or on the ground) won't sway a competitor to call it or not, requiring a mandatory re-putt. 3 seconds is just enough time for your brain to recognize the violation and call it before including the information of whether or not the putt was made.

I think the rule is fine as it stands, except for the gray area of balance control. I'm sure the Rules Committee and CK have wracked their brains (which are surely more powerful than most of ours) about this dilemma and we'll see a modification in the next rules update.