An Upshot Rule Violation Question! For Fun and Insight.

We had a good discussion on our local club site on this.. so thought I would open it up to the world! It was really great to have some 1000+ rated players give their input.

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 opted not to paste it at the
bottom.. like i did for our local forum.

-----------Situation-----
Jim Pro, John Master, and Grant Grasshopper are playing for $100 using PDGA rules. 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 one inche 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 one inch 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 one inche 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.
.
.

[Jim Coonradt]

It would be a warning but would have to be seconded I believe. The foot has to be directly behind the mark and within 11 inches.

[www.Motodom.com]

your answer choice is then B C D or E...But which one?

[Chuck Kennedy]

D, presuming Jim made the foot fault call within 3 seconds of Grant's release. The trick to the answer pertains to the "within one inch" phrase.

[www.Motodom.com]

And that would be a close point.. most people who I have observed.. are a foot to the side of their Mini.. or two foot behind. Sometimes BOTH! lol

Another aid to the question, could be in the statement that "no part of foot was directly behind the marker."
Was also hoping that the call, while the disc is in flight, would make one consider it was done with three seconds. Thanks for drawing this point to the front too.

[Jim Coonradt]

Nobody said if it was seconded or not. If it does get seconded then there would be a warning and a rethrow with a different disc. Here is the relevant section of the rules from PDGA.com.

http://www.pdga.com/rules/80304-stance-subsequent-to-teeing-off

[Chuck Kennedy]

Read it again. It was seconded.

[www.Motodom.com]

It did mention in the question that it was seconded.. so Jim your answer is D !

[Jim Coonradt]

Damnit it Jim those dilithium crystals just can take it anymore. D is the correct answer. It's Sunday and I couldn't read that much information.

[pdgamember]

what about people who put there mini marker down..then put there foot on it when throwing..that is a violation to isnt it?

[www.Motodom.com]

Yes.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Can't tell from the photo if your right knee is behind the line behind your mini and whether your toe is on the LOP running thru the mini.

[www.Motodom.com]

This part can only be answered by the pro's, and the top one in MT (Christian D.) mentioned some wiggle-room to this rule in the heat of battle. He implied that on the fairway, when there is no advantage to being off the line, it isn't much of a issue to call people on it. However, in some fairway shots, the opportunity to be off the mark DOES create an advantage, and then it should get called. (Clearly more shots from off the fairway can involve advantages for being off the mark.)

However I found it interesting to hear that it isn't always worth calling, because I always sense it is a little challenging to hit the mark cleanly on run ups. Others who don't think about it, seem to have one less thing to think about.

However the flip side of this, he said, was that eventually, the run-up and clean footing is so automatic that it isn't quite the advantage to not think about it verses thinking about it.. because the pro's are actually doing it without thinking about it.

I think he referred to using unofficial warnings if he sees someone off the mark in a moment where it wasn't an advantage.