Falling putt or not?

[AciDBatH666]

All violations after that is when you stroke him

When one gets stroked for a stance violation, do they have to re-putt?

according to "G" here, they do reputt

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.

so I'm assuming they have to rethrow and it's a penalty stroke

And "H" states that they can only retreive their discs on a rethrow of it's within 10 meters.

[some call me...tim?]

You have to re-putt for any stance violation. It's just that in the case of your first infraction, you don't get penalized for it.

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.

[ChUcK]

Oh, for the love of.... thanks, tim. I was reading the responses and seeing these two guys battle it out incorrectly was hurting my brain.

Of course, this discussion over Barsby's putt is a moot point. It was not a stance violation because it was neither called nor seconded. I guess the better question would be "Should this have been called etc".

[AciDBatH666]

Either way, if someone wanted to call it, the first is a warning... So technically if it was called out to him he wouldn't be penalized if it was the first one.

not sure how I'm wrong when Tim just repeated verbatum what I said. Curt said it would have to be a re-putt and I stated the first violation is a warning. After that it's a stroke and reputt.

[black udder]

Oh, for the love of.... thanks, tim. I was reading the responses and seeing these two guys battle it out incorrectly was hurting my brain.

Of course, this discussion over Barsby's putt is a moot point. It was not a stance violation because it was neither called nor seconded. I guess the better question would be "Should this have been called etc".

I think it was close, but I can't imagine calling on it. He really didn't move forward until the disc came to a stop. I guess some folks could call it because it wasn't absolutely clear-cut (i.e. he stopped, bent over, picked up mini, stood up, moved forward), but it didn't look like it was a putt anybody expected him to miss either.

[some call me...tim?]

Either way, if someone wanted to call it, the first is a warning... So technically if it was called out to him he wouldn't be penalized if it was the first one.

not sure how I'm wrong when Tim just repeated verbatum what I said. Curt said it would have to be a re-putt and I stated the first violation is a warning. After that it's a stroke and reputt.

I'm not clear what your stance is exactly...are you saying that you have to re-putt on the warning or not? I see that you acknowledge the re-putt after the warning, but everything else seems to indicate that you don't think he has to re-putt on the warning.

[Murdoc Loch]

i've seen it a few times in this thread and all the time wile i'm playing golf and i just wanted to clarify...

10 METERS IS NOT EQUAL TO 30 FEET!!!!

10 meters is 32.808 feet. so don't ask if it's thirty feet, ask if it's 10 meters...

[emiller3]

Man, the more I watch it, the more I think he was in control and balanced. As he starts to bend over, while he's still watching the putt go in, he looks like he could stop and stand right there, if he had wanted to. I mistook that for forward momentum the first time I saw it, but when I watch close, it looks like a conscious effort to move from a brief standstill to bending over to pick up the disc.

Anyway, I'd feel foolish for calling him on that, especially if I watched a replay of it.

[ChUcK]

Certainly nobody called him on it, but why? Did they agree with you and not think it was a stance violation, or were they intimidated by a touring pro, or was he so far ahead already that it didn't matter anyways (he was, he killed that tourney)?

Every single stance violation requires a re-throw. Only the second one and beyond receive the penalty stroke. How many ways does this have to be phrased? The rulebook is clear on this, methinks.

EDIT: Black Udder, the status of the disc has nothing to do with the stance violation. I called a guy on this at my last tourney and the entire card argued with me (about the disc being at rest before the dude fell on his face) until I pulled my rulebook out and proved that the disc's status has absolutely zero to do with a stance violation.

Why is this such a prevalent misconception?

[XvileX]

Looking at the putt w/ the picked up mini.

I would disagree. I think that there is a point (right around 6:56) where he clearly (to me, probably not to most) stops his momentum and shifts to moving downward to pick up the mini, which would make it not a falling putt.

I regularly pick up my mini as part of the putt during casual rounds, and find that it would be very difficult to actually pull off this move without having control of your body first.

On the other hand, I think it is very bad practice in tournaments b/c it opens yourself up to being called. It definitely is not the best way to demonstrate balance.

I at a clinic last night in Medina, OH where Dave Feldberg talked about this exact situation. The first part of his demonstration was about rules. He stated that there is some grey area around this scenario and that ultimately it would be up to the TD to make the official call, though it's very a bad habit to get into. If you don't do it the possibility of being called isn't there.

His call on this was - due to the fact that you don't have both feet on the ground you cannot really demonstrate control. He also stated that because your finger has to touch grass to pick up the mini, the lie has technically been crossed before control was fully shown.

(And if any of the guys that were giving that clinic check these boards, Thanks again!)

[Chuck Kennedy]

Since "balance" is not a clear black & white call, the Rules Committee either intended to make it a gray area on the assumption that common sense would determine rulings OR they couldn't come up with a more precise way to define what specifically was required to complete an appropriate putt within 10m. In which case, Feldberg's interpretation is still just an interpretation of balance, not THE interpretation. Considering that most people can stand on one foot for several seconds without falling over and some can even do it with their eyes closed, it's hard to justify requiring the player to actually touch their second foot to the ground behind the mini before moving forward as THE ulitmate way to display balance. However, if the rule specifically stated something like you can't touch the playing surface forward of the mini before finishing a 3 count ( one mississippi, two mississippi, etc.), then we might have something a little more black and white.

[Keokuk Discer]

Either way, if someone wanted to call it, the first is a warning... So technically if it was called out to him he wouldn't be penalized if it was the first one.

not sure how I'm wrong when Tim just repeated verbatum what I said. Curt said it would have to be a re-putt and I stated the first violation is a warning. After that it's a stroke and reputt.

According to 803.04 Section G he has to re-putt even if it's his first violation and no penalty is given.
Here is the time line;

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.

Dude A to Dude C, "Dude you just had a falling putt"

F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be
valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round.
Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

Dude B to Dude A and C, "Yes it was I second it. But it's your first so no penalty is given for it"

Dude C, "Oops my bad."

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.

Dude A to Dude C, "You have to rethrow from your last lie"

Clear as muddy water?

BTW sorry for the long post. Just trying to clear things up.

[ChUcK]

The Dudes' parents weren't very adventurous in their naming scheme...too much Lebowski, probably.

[XvileX]

Chuck Kennedy - It would be nice if it was clarified in the rules...

What I was really heading towards and the reason I quoted curt was his last statement of that post was that it's a bad habit to get into, and leaves you open for being called on it. That's the same reason I asked about my stamped discs being legal. Not knowing ahead of time leaves me open to being called, which I want to avoid. He should want to avoid it as well.

As far as ChUcK's second question of should he be called on it? I think he should. If he's a pro player he should know the rules and not violate or try to stretch them. Maybe it is just a bad habit he picked up and if that's the case, it's one he should break. If nobody ever calls him on it imagine the drama to ensue the one time he falls on his face, THEN gets called on it. "But... but... I've been doing it for 3 weeks, and it wasn't a problem before. Really guys? I mean, I fell after my put went in anyways." Other possibilities are that he doesn't know that it's a possible violation, or maybe he just wants those ballet classes to have paid off. All kidding aside, perhaps it's something he's unaware of...

I think the underlying factor here isn't so much the rule (or lack there of) so much as it is the player habit surrounding the rule. Although different, it's quite similar to the speed limit. Tell me there isn't a lot of grey area there. If the speed limit's 65 and you go 73 while passing by multiple cops in the median everything's good, right? Sure is. Right up till you get pulled over for 69 in a 65. Don't speed and you won't get pulled over. (note - just a non dg example. I don't care how fast you go.)

Moral of the story(imo): If you don't want to get busted, don't do things that you could get busted for.

[AciDBatH666]

I'm not gonna quote Keokuk Discer's whole post, but he's contradicting himself by quoting me and saying I'm wrong..
By saying

According to 803.04 Section G he has to re-putt even if it's his first violation and no penalty is given.

Man, this is why I stopped posting in this thread. I said you don't get penalized for the first throw. You DON'T have to rethrow it. But every throw AFTER is a penalty and is a rethrow and stroke.
We've already established that it's a "Stance Violation". The other players have 3 seconds to call him out on it. We got that.

A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round.
Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

| And subsequent means?
|
|
|
V

sub⋅se⋅quent
  /ˈsʌbsɪkwənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhb-si-kwuhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. occurring or coming later or after (often fol. by to): subsequent events; Subsequent to their arrival in Chicago, they bought a new car.
2. following in order or succession; succeeding: a subsequent section in a treaty.

So all violations AFTER the first one involve a penalty stroke.
It's not a hard concept to follow. I'm not gonna argue it anymore. It's what I was stating to begin with.
Seacrest OUT