Clarification

[JohnLambert]

So this past weekend we had a small debate as a disc came up short of a mandatory tree. The following picture is a summary of the situation:


According to me, since you could step out and shoot your putt around the mando, the line of play would be directly to the hole while still shooting to the right of the tree. My scenario is marked in the color blue.

According to a friend, who quoted the competition manual, the correct line of play should be first at the mandatory, then at the basket. This means you could not lean out around the tree and would be shooting directly at the tree. His (and his reference) scenario is colored red.

I'm just curious why you wouldn't be allowed to take your stance following the blue example instead of the red example.

Again, I'm not saying you don't have to clear the mandatory, the blue dotted line is just representing where your target is, not the path of the disc.

[veganray]

Red is correct. 803.12D:

D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole.

[bruce_brakel]

The reasons why for any rule are often unpublished. The rule as written gives clear direction and it applies to every situation where you are short of a mando and on the wrong side. I'm not sure how one would word the rule to provide the option you want. Sometimes the best rule is the one that can be simply expressed.

[cgkdisc]

The answer is that the red stance is what was written in the rules as Vegan points out. While your example shows the oddity when the player is near the mando, the blue stance would look pretty odd if the pink dot for the lie was back to the left say below the letter 'd' in drop zone. Ironically, if the hole was a dogleg without a mando and the mando line was the edge of a wall of trees, the correct stance would be facing the pin thru the trees (sort of like the blue stance) even though the only open shot was to the right around the tree (that's not a mando in this case).

[kkrasinski]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Ironically, if the hole was a dogleg without a mando and the mando line was the edge of a wall of trees, the correct stance would be facing the pin thru the trees (sort of like the blue stance) even though the only open shot was to the right around the tree (that's not a mando in this case).

I don't think there is a rule specifying "correct stance" to be perpendicular to the line of play. One can effect a proper stance with hips and shoulders parallel to the line of play, right?

[20940]

As long as no point of contact at release is beyond a line at the back of the marker perpendicular to the line of play and one point is within (proper distance behind the marker) on the line of play.

[gnduke]

That is another no-rule rule. There is no mention of perpendicular lines in the rules. The rule states no point of contact closer to the "hole" (I think it should be "target"). If the scale is correct in the drawing, both the red and blue stances are correct since the green is the only area a supporting point cannot be placed.

[cgkdisc]

I don't think there is a rule specifying "correct stance" to be perpendicular to the line of play. One can effect a proper stance with hips and shoulders parallel to the line of play, right?

That's why I said "sort of like the blue stance." In my example, you would probably stand facing the "non" mando tree with both feet below the mini as looking at the graphic.

[cgkdisc]

There is no mention of perpendicular lines in the rules. The rule states no point of contact closer to the "hole" (I think it should be "target"). If the scale is correct in the drawing, both the red and blue stances are correct since the green is the only area a supporting point cannot be placed.

According to rule 803.12D, the line of play is the mando and it becomes the target for all stance rules. However, the interesting thing about the specific wording is the line of play is the mando object, not the line of play around it as shown in the graphic (which is what the RC probably intended) as the red dotted line. So, the real foul line for the right foot is probably about halfway between the blue and red footprints which maybe is what Gary is indicating.

[krupicka]

What Gary is indicating (I believe) is that the if you are say 12" from the mando object, then straddling out (and even past the mando object) is permissible as long as you aren't within 12" of the mando object.

[cgkdisc]

This is perfect example to hash this out. It would seem if the right foot is far enough to the right that its direct line to the basket is unobstructed, it couldn't be any closer to the basket than the length of the red line measured around the tree from the left foot.

[exczar]

It is correct that you can have another contact point anywhere that is not closer to the mandatory than your mark, but another question here is, where exactly is the mandatory for marking and stance purposes?

From 803.12D,

"When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole."

Looking at the last sentence, it appears that the actual point to use for marking and stance purposes should be the point on the mando, in this picture, which is closest to the teebox, which is actually a point, if we consider the mando as a clockface, just past 6 o'clock, as opposed to the 3 o'clock point shown as the tangential point.

So, as long as any other support point is not closer to that "6 o'clock" point than the mark, it is a legal stance, even if that other support point happens to be closer to the eventual target.

Does this seem correct?

[cgkdisc]

I'm saying I don't know. I believe the RC intended the reference point on the mando to really be the mark at roughly 3 o'clock. However, because the rule says "mando object" we get into this grey area because I agree the roughly 6 o'clock point is the reference. But then the right foot could be directly in line with the basket depending on how wide the stance is.

[exczar]

From my conclusion in the previous post, if a mandatory line is drawn, it should be drawn so that it terminates at the point of the mandatory object that is closest to the tee, not drawn so that it goes through the center of the mandatory.

Actually, it would help to clarify things a bit, IMO, if the mandatory was defined a little more clearly, such as being a vertical line originating at the point of the mandatory object that is in contact with the playing surface and is closest to the tee, but I know that it would be impractical, given the nature of what we use as mandatory objects.

Can you tell that I am not a big fan of mandatories?

[cgkdisc]

To add to the confusion, what if the player throws and hits the mando tree at around the 4 o'clock point and the disc ricochets off to the right and doesn't cross the "regular" mando line. Because the mando object at 6 o'clock was the line of play, did the player cross this temporary mando line by striking the tree at 4 o'clock?

[exczar]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

I'm saying I don't know. I believe the RC intended the reference point on the mando to really be the mark at roughly 3 o'clock. However, because the rule says "mando object" we get into this grey area because I agree the roughly 6 o'clock point is the reference. But then the right foot could be directly in line with the basket depending on how wide the stance is.

Chuck, you are right, the other support point could be exactly where you said, and be a legal stance, IMO.

Also, you are correct that in 800. Definitions, it defines a Mandatory as an object, but then, in 803.12A, it states that the disc must pass the mandatory on the correct side, AND states that the disc must pass the mandatory _line_ on the correct side. The mandatory and mandatory line are two different things. If the mandatory object was a tree that forked, I could pass correctly around the mandatory line (actually a ray, not a line), but not pass completely around the mandatory object in the correct side.

That is why I think the definition of the physicality of a mandatory needs to be reworked.

[exczar]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

To add to the confusion, what if the player throws and hits the mando tree at around the 4 o'clock point and the disc ricochets off to the right and doesn't cross the "regular" mando line. Because the mando object at 6 o'clock was the line of play, did the player cross this temporary mando line by striking the tree at 4 o'clock?

I am leaning towards the disc having sucessfully negotiated the mandatory, and I would argue that the mandatory line, which in this example, terminates at 9 o'clock, was incorrectly drawn, and should have terminated at 6 o'clock.

I would expect opinions to vary here, and would also expect provisional throws to be taken, letting the TD make the decision after the completion of the round.

[JohnLambert]

Well, I'm 10 times more confused than I was 2 days ago. But I'm guessing the majority agree (mostly) with the red stance. In fact, had I drawn the red path directly towards the center of the tree instead of the path around the tree, the results might be different.

The mando line terminating at 6 instead of 9 confuses me. The TD made the call for the line to be at the center of the tree to give player's a slight chance of 'unwinding' around the mando unless they completely passed the tree. If the line was terminated at the point closest to the tee, a disc could come to rest tangent of the tree and still have missed the mandatory.

[exczar]

The reason I said that the mandatory line should terminate at 6 o'clock is that the Rules state that is the point that is to be used for marking purposes if the disc had not yet passed the mandatory, and I thought, if that point is used for marking purposes, should it not also be used in determining the mandatory line as well? I thought it cleaner to have one point used for all circumstances, rather than having point A used if the disc had not yet passed the mandatory object, and point B used to determine if the disc had passed the mandatory object(?!?).

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by JohnLambert

Well, I'm 10 times more confused than I was 2 days ago. But I'm guessing the majority agree (mostly) with the red stance. In fact, had I drawn the red path directly towards the center of the tree instead of the path around the tree, the results might be different.

The mando line terminating at 6 instead of 9 confuses me. The TD made the call for the line to be at the center of the tree to give player's a slight chance of 'unwinding' around the mando unless they completely passed the tree.

And this is why Nor Cal pros at Worlds still play by 2002 rulebooks - because their TD's keep calling rules by 2002 definitions.

In Layman's terms:
If you miss the mando (wherever it happens to be called), you play the next throw from the designated drop zone area. - If you do NOT miss the mando (wherever it happens to be called) you line up as explained in the rule book, and throw from there.

[JohnLambert]

Originally Posted by keithjohnson

And this is why Nor Cal pros at Worlds still play by 2002 rulebooks - because their TD's keep calling rules by 2002 definitions.

In Layman's terms:
If you miss the mando (wherever it happens to be called), you play the next throw from the designated drop zone area. - If you do NOT miss the mando (wherever it happens to be called) you line up as explained in the rule book, and throw from there.

Are you just ranting or is there some significance to a 2002 rule here? What in the world do NorCal pro's or TD's have to do with my question?

[exczar]

Maybe the 2002 rule book required undwinding, and subsequent rule books did not.

[gnduke]

Originally Posted by JohnLambert

Well, I'm 10 times more confused than I was 2 days ago. But I'm guessing the majority agree (mostly) with the red stance. In fact, had I drawn the red path directly towards the center of the tree instead of the path around the tree, the results might be different.

The mando line terminating at 6 instead of 9 confuses me. The TD made the call for the line to be at the center of the tree to give player's a slight chance of 'unwinding' around the mando unless they completely passed the tree. If the line was terminated at the point closest to the tee, a disc could come to rest tangent of the tree and still have missed the mandatory.

In reference to the general concept behind your question, if a direct line from your disc to the basket passes the wrong side of the mandatory object, the mandatory object becomes the target for stance rules.

However, when the target is within a few feet of the mark it becomes important to remember the stance rules state that no point of contact can be closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker. For example, if the mark is 2' from the target, one point of contact must be behind the mini (from the mando), and the other point of contact must more than 2' from the target, but not necessarily behind the mini.

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by JohnLambert

Are you just ranting or is there some significance to a 2002 rule here? What in the world do NorCal pro's or TD's have to do with my question?

I'm not ranting, I'm stating a fact - One that you yourself even intimated by using the language from the 2002 rulebook which does not apply anymore, and you are a NOR CAL TD - so that's why I brought it up as I have played 3 Events out west and the Worlds this year, and EVERY player that had an issue with MANDO calls was from NOR CAL - so the general assumption on my part was thart NOR CAL TD's are still using or following the 2002 rule books instead of the 2006 rule books, or the players would have familiar with the new rule.


If that is not the case and you just like referencing 2002 rules when asking about today's rules issues with MANDO's then I assumed wrong, and it may just be a huge coincidence that some Cali players are not aware of MANDO rules.

Carry on...

[JohnLambert]

Originally Posted by keithjohnson

I'm not ranting, I'm stating a fact - One that you yourself even intimated by using the language from the 2002 rulebook which does not apply anymore, and you are a NOR CAL TD - so that's why I brought it up as I have played 3 Events out west and the Worlds this year, and EVERY player that had an issue with MANDO calls was from NOR CAL - so the general assumption on my part was thart NOR CAL TD's are still using or following the 2002 rule books instead of the 2006 rule books, or the players would have familiar with the new rule.


If that is not the case and you just like referencing 2002 rules when asking about today's rules issues with MANDO's then I assumed wrong, and it may just be a huge coincidence that some Cali players are not aware of MANDO rules.

Carry on...

I didn't realize I had used such a controversial word, but I wasn't referring to passing the mandatory line adjacent to the mandatory object. I'm referring to the image I provided. Being short of the mando line and still throw around the mando. Instead of 'unwind', I'll call it 'unthrowingonthewrongsideofthemandatorybutstillbei ngshortofthemandatorylineing'. You really talked to every player with a mandatory problem and asked them where they were from and they all answered NorCal? That, in itself, is fascinating.

FYI, I help out at tournaments here, but I'm no TD. I hadn't even heard of disc golf in 2002 and played my first tournament in 2007. I do know that I've never heard of any local tournament allowing unwinding after missing/passing a mando on the wrong side.

[keithjohnson]

Fair enough - And no I didn't talk with them, I played in the same groups as them.

I've played Events out west for over 10 years, and yes- the players that did not know the rule, and were also adamant that UNWINDING was the rule until I showed them the 2006 rule book - all 3 were from NOR CAL.

That's why when you used the old wording I jumped on it.

No hard feelings.

Keith

[JohnLambert]

Originally Posted by keithjohnson

Fair enough - And no I didn't talk with them, I played in the same groups as them.

I've played Events out west for over 10 years, and yes- the players that did not know the rule, and were also adamant that UNWINDING was the rule until I showed them the 2006 rule book - all 3 were from NOR CAL.

That's why when you used the old wording I jumped on it.

No hard feelings.

Keith

I probably picked up the term from some of our older players and assumed it meant what I thought it meant. Regardless, maybe what happened to you reinforces that other thread that would require all NT players to test on rules before play. Hopefully the test is hard enough to educate seasoned players on newer rules!

Hard feelings? Fohgeta boutit!

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by JohnLambert

Regardless, maybe what happened to you reinforces that other thread that would require all NT players to test on rules before play. Hopefully the test is hard enough to educate seasoned players on newer rules!

Hard feelings? Fohgeta boutit!

I hope that it has that effect, but if nothing else it will at least get everyone looking through their rulebooks to find answers, and maybe by osmosis they'll retain some of it.

[exczar]

Originally Posted by keithjohnson

I hope that it has that effect, but if nothing else it will at least get everyone looking through their rulebooks to find answers, and maybe by osmosis they'll retain some of it.

Amen to that, brother!