Is this possible?

A pro in the A pool was plaing Water Works at the World championships.

He made a very bad shot, called a "foot fault" on himself, someone seconded it. So he replayed.

Seems like a guy and his buddy could get a mulligan/round if they wanted to.

This is a well known ploy on tour whether right or wrong.

There is nothing in the rules that restricts a player from calling (or seconding) a foot fault on himself.

Is this possible?

A pro in the A pool was plaing Water Works at the World championships.

He made a very bad shot, called a "foot fault" on himself, someone seconded it. So he replayed.

Seems like a guy and his buddy could get a mulligan/round if they wanted to.

Per 803.04F, A stance violation can be called by any member of the group. So yes, you can call a foot fault on yourself. I could see how this rule could be abused if someone is colluding with another player. If that is the case and it is apparent then you have the option to bring the matter to the TD and both players could be disqualified for violation of 804.05(3), Cheating, a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

The problem is usually the timing of the call. If the player waits until the result is clear, it may be too late to call. If there was clearly no foot fault, cheating should be suspected.

If they foot fault often enough that they are safe to call it just because of a bad shot, then they should be watched more carefully for the rest of the round/event. They have demonstrated their interest in following the stance rules closely, the other players in the group should do all they can to help.

A few times I've called a foot fault on someone as a short putt (10-12 footer) bounced off the center chains back at them. I've not had it reciprocated but people seem to appreciate it. lol

How is following the rule, be it to your advantage or not, "a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play"?

I like gnduke's approach (be as helpful as you can in calling their foot faults in the future).

How is following the rule, be it to your advantage or not, "a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play"? Smitty implied that the players could be giving each other a mulligan per round in the scenario he described. So in fact, a player should only call a foot fault when there is a foot fault. If a player willfully calls a foot fault when there wasn't a foot fault and another player (or buddy as Smitty put it) is colluding with this player and seconds it to help give the player an advantage to throw a second shot, then yes THAT IS CIRCUMVENTING THE RULES.

If the player putts and he commits a falling putt and calls foot fault on himself within 3 seconds of the violation, and then someone seconds it, then there is no problem.

Did the putter actually make a falling putt? If a player is attempting to get a free shot by calling a falling putt on himself, and doesn't committ the violation, that in itself is circumventing the rules. A player could try to blatantly commit a falling putt after missing, but you still need somone else to second it. Are you really going to second a falling putt when a player missed his putt? I think not. I would be very suspect of another player if he seconded a falling putt after his buddy just missed a putt.

Then calling an unplayable lie when the lie may in fact be playable is also circumventing the rules and therefore cheating?

You may not LIKE the rules as written, but they don't have all the maybes, ifs, and buts that some try to impose. By definition you simply CANNOT circumvent a rule by explicitly following it.

Then calling an unplayable lie when the lie may in fact be playable is also circumventing the rules and therefore cheating?




i had a lengthy series of discourse with the rules committee at one point on that one- my stance was that calling a playable lie unplayable when it was simply very undesirable was indeed circumventing the rules. they, however, did not agree. they did agree that the rule would possibly be better termed "undesirable lie".

I certainly think that a promptly called foot fault is within the rules. That being said, I have never called myself on a foot fault on a missed shot. I have done so even though I was certain that I had foot faulted. One could argue that I have in fact deliberately violated the rules in violation of Rule 804.05. I will do it again. If somebody else wants to call it, so be it. I will not argue. However, I will not call a foot fault on myself that may result in giving me another chance to make the shot. I suspect that if someone else in my group makes such a call that I, who am normally very laid back, will become much more attentive and distrustful.

I have seen this first hand in an event. The ploy was in reciprocated by both players on a later hole. It was a A tier and I was furious, and let the person know it. The t.d. couldn't do anything about.

If you were on the card and was watching and definitely did not see a foot fault, you could submit a report of same to the PDGA Tour Director.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Especially without incontrovertible evidence (photo or video). In a foursome, if a player calls a foot fault and the call is seconded, even if both other players claim to have seen that no foot fault occurred, the tie still goes to the runner per 803.01.D.(1).

I suppose you might argue the player was in violation of 803.01.F. It seems to me, however, that even if you successfully plead that the disputation was not covered by the rules there is nothing stopping any other player from taking advantage the same way. Since everyone has the same opportunity, the action is fair.

I've not been playing disc golf long, and at the level I play I have never seen anyone take advantage of this rule. But I have been playing games for a very long time and I have learned that to be successful at a competitive level one must know the rules, play by the rules, and use the advantages the rules afford. To do otherwise might be called noble, but it could also be called stupid.

Then calling an unplayable lie when the lie may in fact be playable is also circumventing the rules and therefore cheating? By definition you simply CANNOT circumvent a rule by explicitly following it.

Are we are talking about foot faults or unplayable lies in this discussion? To answer your off-topic statement, you can read rule 803.06A.

803.06A Unplayable Lie: A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable....The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player’s score.

It is not circumventing the rules, the player can at his discretion call an unplayable lie and the player will take two strokes to shoot from the same lie (the original shot + penalty).

You may not LIKE the rules as written, but they don't have all the maybes, ifs, and buts that some try to impose. I'm not sure why you think I don't like the rule as written, I actually DO like the way 803.04F is written and it supports my logic. If a player is trying to circumvent the rules by calling a falling putt on himself, when in fact it wasn't a falling putt, the other players still have to second the call. If the players observe that it wasn't a falling putt, they don't have to second it, and the fact it has to be seconded will prevent a player attempting to gain an advantage by re-shooting a missed putt. If the player continues to repeat the process, then he could be subject to 804.05A(3).

803.04F. 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. (SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD RULE TO ME).

i had a lengthy series of discourse with the rules committee at one point on that one- my stance was that calling a playable lie unplayable when it was simply very undesirable was indeed circumventing the rules. they, however, did not agree. they did agree that the rule would possibly be better termed "undesirable lie".

I agree that the term "unplayable lie" is misleading. Since a player has the sole discretion to determine if the lie is unplayable, they can call an unplayable lie when in fact there is a playable lie. I agree that the term should be called "undesirable lie" since the player has the choice of which lie to throw from. I've only seen this call used once, and the player did have a playable lie, but it was undesirable from the previous lie, therefore the player was able to shoot again from the prior lie (his putt caught on an edge, rolled back farther from his previous lie and landed in OB).

Because the rules clearly state the player has sole discretion to call an unplayable lie, no other player has any input what-so-ever to apply their own judgment to the application of the called rule. However, you are in fact penalizing yourself for making this call and that is maybe why the RC sides this way.

I suppose you might argue the player was in violation of 803.01.F. It seems to me, however, that even if you successfully plead that the disputation was not covered by the rules there is nothing stopping any other player from taking advantage the same way. Since everyone has the same opportunity, the action is fair. Since everyone has the same opportunity to circumvent the rules, the action is fair???? Are you seriously saying this. I understand your implication of 803.01D Appeals, majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower. However, the application of 804.05A(3) is still in effect. Bring the matter to the TD's attention after the round and let him make a decision if he feels the players are colluding together.

I agree that the term "unplayable lie" is misleading. Since a player has the sole discretion to determine if the lie is unplayable, they can call an unplayable lie when in fact there is a playable lie. I agree that the term should be called "undesirable lie" since the player has the choice of which lie to throw from. I've only seen this call used once, and the player did have a playable lie, but it was undesirable from the previous lie, therefore the player was able to shoot again from the prior lie (his putt caught on an edge, rolled back farther from his previous lie and landed in OB).

Because the rules clearly state the player has sole discretion to call an unplayable lie, no other player has any input what-so-ever to apply their own judgment to the application of the called rule. However, you are in fact penalizing yourself for making this call and that is maybe why the RC sides this way.

He could have replayed it from the previous lie WITHOUT the unplayable lie rule, by using the OB rule which allows you to replay from previous lie.

The Foot Fault rule could be easily corrected by making it a penalty instead of a courtesy warning. Getting a warning for a stance voilation is absurd any way, it should be a penalty.

The Foot Fault rule could be easily corrected by making it a penalty instead of a courtesy warning. Getting a warning for a stance voilation is absurd any way, it should be a penalty. That would definitely fix this issue!

This is the exact info I was looking for. One of the top players in the world called a foot fault on himself on a shanked upshot. Saved himself at least a stroke if not more. I just don't see how this could be legal.

It's always "legal" for a player, including the thrower, to call a foot fault, regardless of whether or not you observed the alleged violation. That is one reason that a second is needed, for confirmation. A one time occurence of this is not a trend. If a player in your group appears to use the same ploy more than once, I would definitely ask the TD to make note of this when the TD event report is filed.

I certainly do not see the need for a warning at the top level of play.

Are we are talking about foot faults or unplayable lies in this discussion? To answer your off-topic statement, you can read rule 803.06A.

The fact that you are unable to understand the relevance of an example or question does not make that example or question "off-topic". Others apparently see the relevance. If you don't understand, simply ask a question.

Since everyone has the same opportunity to circumvent the rules, the action is fair????

Calling a foot fault against oneself is not cirumventing the rules, but using the rules as written. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many posters in this thread, most of whom have far more tournament experience than you and many of whom are certified officials. And yes, since everyone is afforded the same opportunity within the rules, the action is fair, although undesirable.

The Foot Fault rule could be easily corrected by making it a penalty instead of a courtesy warning. Getting a warning for a stance voilation is absurd any way, it should be a penalty.

Perhaps. An alternate proposal would be to penalize any self-imposed foot faults, and to do away with the requirement to second self-imposed foot faults.

Maybe the foot fault rule should be changed so the player gets a rethrow but the player gets the worst of the two throws as determined by the group? Then it wouldn't matter if the player called a foot fault on themself. We also wouldn't need the sequence of warning then penalty for the second infraction.

all i know is if i was on a card with 4 and it was obvious that 2 of the players used this "technique" to get an extra shot.they better hope the other player not involved with the ploy is not like me because every hole after that he "would" footfault with the second coming from the other not involved in the technique..after the round we could all just swear we saw what we called he gets a free shot and 18 penalty shots for all the "footfaults" witnessed..and you never have to worry about that person doing it again.:)

Maybe the foot fault rule should be changed so the player gets a rethrow but the player gets the worst of the two throws as determined by the group? Then it wouldn't matter if the player called a foot fault on themself. We also wouldn't need the sequence of warning then penalty for the second infraction.

I like it (for whatever that's worth). It allows the conscientious player to self-impose the fault without potential for gain, but with the potential to "prove the shot" and avoid penalty.

The other thing people have to remember is it needs to be called within 3 seconds. Unless it's an up shot within 100 ft. the disc will still be in the air when the time limit expires. Waiting to see the result of where it lands is to late (on a normal drive of 250+). Keep that in mind when friends are giving each other an extra shot during a tourney. It's in the rules so it's perfectly legal to call themselves with a friends second.
If I saw it happen in a round and could tell they were trying to help each other I would advise both those people I would be watching very close where their foot is from here on out. Sometimes that's enough to get under their skin and get that stroke back plus a couple.

I like it (for whatever that's worth). It allows the conscientious player to self-impose the fault without potential for gain, but with the potential to "prove the shot" and avoid penalty.

The problem I see is that "worst of the two throws" is too subjective and also a bit artificial. I would rather see a stroke penalty for each instance, remove the "freebie" as it were, and also remove the "seconding" requirement if you call it on yourself. With that, I think the only way two players could collude to impose an unfair penalty on another would be to call and second a bogus foot fault. Collusion to obtain a second, penalty free throw would end.

The fact that you are unable to understand the relevance of an example or question does not make that example or question "off-topic". Others apparently see the relevance. If you don't understand, simply ask a question. Hey easy there, we are here to learn and help each other out. I do understand the relevance you are trying to bring to light; it just doesn’t address the original topic of discussion = “self called foot fault”. In Smitty’s last sentence he is addressing the possibility of players working together to circumvent the foot fault rule and that is what I am addressing in my discussion. You are trying to say, if a player calls an unplayable lie when in fact it is a playable lie, then the player is circumventing the rules. It isn’t circumventing the rules calling an unplayable lie because of the explicit language (soul judge) stated in the rule (803.06A). There is also no advantage taken; the player is giving himself a penalty stroke for calling an unplayable lie and must shoot from the same lie with two strokes added. However, calling a foot fault on oneself with the intent to get a mulligan for a missed putt and colluding with other players is circumventing the rules. Now if a player already has a stance violation and calls a foot fault on himself again, I’ll be happy to give him the extra penalty stroke.
Calling a foot fault against oneself is not circumventing the rules, but using the rules as written. Yes, I agree, I do believe I stated this as well, see Post #4. But if you are calling a foot fault when there clearly wasn’t one and if you are colluding with another player to get a mulligan, then it is circumventing the rules.
This is not just my opinion but the opinion of many posters in this thread, most of whom have far more tournament experience than you and many of whom are certified officials. It is not an opinion but a statement of fact that a player can call a foot fault on himself. I even stated the rule where any member can call a foot fault, see Post #15. I don’t think many posters you are attempting “to speak in behalf of” would agree that it is their opinion, especially experienced tournament players and certified officials. They would agree however, that is a statement of fact which is clearly stated in the rule book (803.04F).
And yes, since everyone is afforded the same opportunity within the rules, the action is fair, although undesirable. I don’t want to misinterpret your statement. Can you please elaborate and explain what you do you mean “afforded the same opportunity with the rules”. I don’t know if you are still discussing if a player can call a foot fault on himself, or if players are colluding together to get a mulligan on a missed putt.

Patrick, all of my comments are within the context of the original post.

The problem I see is that "worst of the two throws" is too subjective and also a bit artificial. I would rather see a stroke penalty for each instance, remove the "freebie" as it were, and also remove the "seconding" requirement if you call it on yourself. With that, I think the only way two players could collude to impose an unfair penalty on another would be to call and second a bogus foot fault. Collusion to obtain a second, penalty free throw would end.

It is subjective. I think that "warning" call and rethrow should just be eliminated. Alternatively, I think that the falling putt part of the rule should not cancel the previous stroke if the putt is not made.

The other two rules that I can think of with warnings allowed for the first offense are non-playing infractions, "courtesy" and "unmarked disc"

With courtesy, if you are trying to use it to calm down a disruptive PO'd player, making the first one an official warning without a penalty means you can call it without as much worry that it will make the player fly further off the handle. Also, it gives a chance to find out that you are playing with a group that is more senstive to something than your normal group.

For example: There are some areas where it seems that you must be in a narrow 45 degree arc behind the player throwing not watching, and holding your breath because they can not throw well otherwise and will blame you for a miss-throw. Other areas and other players, you could be having a conversation with while they are driving.

The uniquely marking the disc warning is fair because it really doesn't affect play, is easy to correct, and seems a cheesy way to lose a stroke.

The other thing people have to remember is it needs to be called within 3 seconds. Unless it's an up shot within 100 ft. the disc will still be in the air when the time limit expires. Waiting to see the result of where it lands is to late (on a normal drive of 250+). Keep that in mind when friends are giving each other an extra shot during a tourney. It's in the rules so it's perfectly legal to call themselves with a friends second.
If I saw it happen in a round and could tell they were trying to help each other I would advise both those people I would be watching very close where their foot is from here on out. Sometimes that's enough to get under their skin and get that stroke back plus a couple.

The foot fault needs to be called within 3-seconds not the second. So a player could call a foot fault on themselves but their friend could second after the throw had landed!

of course if the disc landed in a good place somehow, then a different player could second it also!

Then calling an unplayable lie when the lie may in fact be playable is also circumventing the rules and therefore cheating?

You may not LIKE the rules as written, but they don't have all the maybes, ifs, and buts that some try to impose. By definition you simply CANNOT circumvent a rule by explicitly following it.

I'm not sure if you actually read the previous posts or not but calling nonexistent foot faults or purposefully committing stance violations in order to get a second shot is not following the rules. Selectively calling stance violations only when it helps your buddy is circuventing the rules.
The part that makes it cheating isn't calling the foot fault on your buddy and giving him the second shot, assuming there actually was a foot fault. What is cheating was not calling all the other foot faults he committed that didn't get called because the shot was ok.

the whole reason for warnings on such rules is for those players who aren't cheating on purpose. I've had people give me warnings on foot faults, that I honestly did not know I committed. I appreciated it, and told them so, as it made me more aware of what I was doing.

Also newer players who just don't know should get a warning, then they won't do it again and they won't feel discouraged by rule stickler know it alls.

this could start a whole other topic, but I don't think you can have different rules for different pros/ams, different 'level of play', etc. The rulebook is already confusing enough, but to have multiple rulebooks?

The Foot Fault rule could be easily corrected by making it a penalty instead of a courtesy warning. Getting a warning for a stance voilation is absurd any way, it should be a penalty.

I think this is a great idea, especially if they are going to do away with the circle.

Something to ponder...

You are playing doubles. You throw a bad shot with a questionable foot fault. You call yourself. Can your partner second it? Is there any rule disallowing partners on the same team to second each other?

Let's step it up a notch...

It's ALTERNATE SHOT doubles... you foot fault, call it, partner seconds it. You rethrow. Later in the round, your partner footfaults. Is this double jeopardy, or is your partner on his own set of foot faults? Is there anywhere that states that a TEAM incurs foot faults as a team, or do they get distributed to individuals?

I haven't read the rule book on this subject, it just occured to me while reading the discussion.

Considering that the player is responsible for infractions made by his/her caddy (Competition Manual), it would follow that a doubles team is a competition unit. For example, I don't believe a caddy can second a foot fault made by the person whose bag (s)he's carrying so a doubles partner shouldn't be able to second a foot fault made by their partner. The interesting aspect related to this is how we seem to allow just two doubles teams to play in a group but two players in singles is not allowed? If a doubles team is a playing unit, then it would seem that for PDGA sanctioned doubles, three teams should be the minimum group size.

I don't think that the foot-faulter should be able to make any calls that would help them. They should only be able to make or second calls that cost them. (opinion only)

I saw it happen at worlds where a guy quickly seconded a call that was highly questionable to begin with. I was watching him. It didn't look like a ff to me. His throw was really crappy and he jumped all over the foot fault call and there is no way he could have seen it. His next throw was way better.

Now I've been called for a falling putt and I seconded it because it was obvious I fell forward over a boulder. Nobody else in the group seconded it, but I did because it was the right thing to do...take my medicine/fess up to it.