james_mccaine
May 17 2005, 08:11 PM
Many disc golfers have not read the rules. Many others have only read portions. Others have read the rules, but their interpretations differ. I propose that we create a list of commonly held rule interpretations that are in fact false. Rule myths. This list can be used as an educational tool. I for one will benefit since I probably hold tight to some rule myths that I am not yet aware of. So, I'll begin the list.

1) Myth: Stance used in straddle putting. Some insist that the foot which is not behind the marker must be behind an imaginary line that is perpendicular to the line from the marker to the basket and intersects that line at the back of the marker.

Truth: your "not-behind-the-marker-foot" must be behind an imaginary arc of a circle. The circle has the basket at its center and runs through the back edge of the marker.

2) Myth: If a throw hits your bag by accident, you are penalized two strokes.

Truth: In order to get the two stroke penalty, you must "consciously alter the course of a thrown disc."

3) I consider this an "interpretation myth." To determine if a disc is surrounded by water, you stick your finger into the ground around the disc's periphery. If your finger holes fill with water, the disc is surrounded by water. I'm not sure there is a corresponding "truth" to this myth, but I consider it a myth nonetheless.

Please add others.

krazyeye
May 17 2005, 08:18 PM
Number two the most. I know two Officials who beleive this. It ain't my rule book. Never incountered one your "truth" seems more logical to me. Three is odd at best that could make some wetlands really horrible.

slo
May 17 2005, 08:21 PM
I believe there's an existing thread, but with dial-up, I won't be up to ME to reference. Well, I have a new one, anyways. I think.

Myth: All the circles have to be the same colour.
Truth: You don't even NEED painted circles!

...I heard this @ a NT, so perhaps those rules are different. See above, for sloth excuse.

May 17 2005, 08:24 PM
I wish we could use the shock collar method of rule enforcement. Don't mind the obvious ones sure to follow, but falling putts and throwing behind your lie, or heck even remotely close would be nice in my book. I witnessed some severe falling putts, this weekend but it was worlds biggest and I was already having a bad day, so I just laughed it off, and thought this is why I don't like tournaments.
Too bad foot faults and falling putts don't leave an odor behind.

Alacrity
May 17 2005, 08:49 PM
Myth: An unmarked disc in your bag, is a stroke per hole that it was carried on, if you do not state before the round that you have an unmarked disc

Truth: If you don't throw em, it don't matter

Myth: (all to common) If a disc is touching grass that has grown from inbounds to OB, it is inbounds. I have seen this myth applied to both water and street curbs that are OB.

Truth: if it is surrounded by water or concrete (when the concrete is OB) then it is OB. If that water or curb is covered with grass it doesn't matter. Look under the grass.

Myth: If someone throws something in anger they should get a courtesy warning

Truth: If someone throws something in anger during a tournament they should be DQ'd.

May 17 2005, 10:19 PM
Truth: If someone throws something in anger during a tournament they should be DQ'd.



Myth #1: throwing things in anger during a tournament is grounds for disqualification.

TRUTH: players are specifically entitled to throw discs in play in anger.

Myth #2: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, should be disqualified.

TRUTH: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, MAY be disqualified by the TD, but the TD has no obligation to do so.


804.05 DISQUALIFICATION AND SUSPENSION
A. A player <font color="red">may</font> be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct, such as loud cursing, throwing things in anger <font color="red">{other than discs in play)</font>, or overt rudeness to anyone present/

slo
May 17 2005, 10:49 PM
1) Myth: Stance used in straddle putting. Some insist that the foot which is not behind the marker must be behind an imaginary line that is perpendicular to the line from the marker to the basket and intersects that line at the back of the marker.

Truth: your "not-behind-the-marker-foot" must be behind an imaginary arc of a circle. The circle has the basket at its center and runs through the back edge of the marker.

Mr. Sung, wouldn't you dispute the 'truth' axiom here, and in fact play something quite similar to the 'myth' scheme, except the line is through the middle of the marker [thus delineating a 'rear' of the marker]? At least that's how I remember the 'no closer' argument.

cromwell
May 17 2005, 11:12 PM
1) Myth: Stance used in straddle putting. Some insist that the foot which is not behind the marker must be behind an imaginary line that is perpendicular to the line from the marker to the basket and intersects that line at the back of the marker.

Truth: your "not-behind-the-marker-foot" must be behind an imaginary arc of a circle. The circle has the basket at its center and runs through the back edge of the marker.



The detail to look at here is the "perpendicular" usage. Your feet must be behind a perpendicular line to the basket - that is to say, your "off" foot must be behind a line that would allow it to be no closer to the basket than the foot which is behind the back of your mini. You say your feet must be behind an imaginary arc which, while technically correct, is also misleading since the requirement is similarly met (and much easier to visualize) by imagining the line that bisects the two points of the arc that your feet must remain behind.

Tomayto, Tomahto. But there is no myth/truth to be found here.

slo
May 17 2005, 11:30 PM
I'd just like to know one way or the other. Even the DGRZ's seem divided on this one, and I'm but a mere acolyte to zealotdom.

...getting back to myth, I've been told a spotter can't help find a lost disc, or retrieve a suspended one, and that's flat-out incorrect.

slo
May 17 2005, 11:43 PM
Truth: if it is surrounded by water or concrete (when the concrete is OB) then it is OB. If that water or curb is covered with grass it doesn't matter. Look under the grass.

Not necessarily, if declared otherwise beforehand. We have an asphalt road as a major OB obstacle. The edge is decrepit, decayed, and in places, overgrown by Burmuda Grass, in some places by a foot or more. We play it: If the grass is attached, it's good. It's spelled out in a rules summary, placed on every clipboard [usually!].

ching_lizard
May 17 2005, 11:45 PM
Here's one that came up on the Lead MPO card at Waco Pro weekend on #17 bEast:

Dave Feldberg throws a picture perfect two-finger cut roller to within about 35 feet of the pin.

George Smith attempts something similar to that and it hits one of the official spotters who was hiding behind some branches on one side of the fairway. George's disc gets a hugely favorable lie since his disc was heading wildly out of bounds when it struck the spotter.

Feldberg looked anxiously at me and wanted my "ruling" on where the disc should be spotted. (He didn't say so, but I got the feeling he was hoping I'd mark it hit the spotter and not where it came to rest.)

Ruling: The disc wasn't intentionally altered. Contact was incidental, and therefore it gets played where it comes to rest. (:DNo matter how favorable the lie might be!:D)

jared11
May 18 2005, 12:04 AM
ya i heard about that from someone else on that lead card.

sandalman
May 18 2005, 12:13 AM
um, not quite. the original truth/myth is correct. placing your non-marking foot on the arc places it closer to the pin than placing it on a line that is perpendicular to the line of play from the pin to the mark. how much closer depends on how far away from the pin the mark is.

when the away foot is marked on the arc, it is precisely the same distance from the poleas the mark itself.

in the other case, the perpendicular line is at a 90 degree angle from the LOP. if the mark is "a" from the pole, and the perpendicular stance is "b" wide, then the distance from the pole for the away foot is the square root of (a-squared + b-squared), or "c". the value for "c" (the distance from the pole to the non-marking foot) will always be greater than "a" (the distance between the pole and the mark)

(ps - this is true even in Nicklideon Geometry!)

Moderator005
May 18 2005, 12:50 AM
There was a thread called Non-Rules Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=13330&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) that was created by the late Scott Wolfe in 2001 befoe he was struck with brain cancer. Scott was one of the original 'rules zealots' and believed strongly in clarifying the various rules of disc golf so that they were adhered to uniformly.

slo
May 18 2005, 12:50 AM
Personally the 'arc' method 'works' for me, but anything past this perpendicular line could be considered advancing towards the target.

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear <font color="red"> edge </font> of the marker disc...

...the argument being past this line is closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker. Just not necessarily in distance. The line wouldn't be touching the rear edge of the disc, but rather its middle...that's how "rear edge" gets defined.

There are 30 Ruling Committee [RC] questions and answers on the rules page, but this doesen't seem to be covered...wish it was. :(

krazyeye
May 18 2005, 12:54 AM
Wow, I'd think one must be a savant to figure this out. Well it's a circle. Should be pretty easy.

sandalman
May 18 2005, 01:02 AM
...the argument being past this line is closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker. Just not necessarily in distance.

ok, i'll bite... if its "not necessarily" in distance, then what pray tell, IS it closer in??? time??? some fourth dimension??? please lemme know! :D

specialk
May 18 2005, 01:05 AM
I've been told a spotter can't help find a lost disc,



So, why were they called "spotters"?

gnduke
May 18 2005, 01:13 AM
Are you saying that you must stand behind the perpendicular line, or behind the arc ?

The arc should be correct since the rule states no closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker, not that it must be farther.

slo
May 18 2005, 01:15 AM
I believe it has to do with 'direction'. Say your rear edge of the marker is 11 meters from the target. One 'camp' says any other contact, as long as it is 11.01 meters from the target, is fine and dandy. However...some of this area, beyond the rear edge, is getting further from the marker, and moving towards the target. Just not closer to.

I've likely misquoted Fore already...but I find the subject interesting...hopefully we'll hear his side of the argument, from someone who understands it!

I would REALLY like to see an X's & O's diagram in the rulebook of what is, and is not OK! This has been debated for as long as I've been on the board, 4+ years, and it no doubt existed before! :eek:

...in the interim, any other dispellable myths, handy?

May 18 2005, 01:43 AM
warning: thread drift below

Equipment Myth:

a TL is a Teebird with a Leopard bottom; an FL is a Firebird with a Leopard bottom

Reality: the L stands for a Less stable version of the original.

Alacrity
May 18 2005, 09:59 AM
Fore, the key here is discs in play. If you mark a disk it is no longer in play.



Truth: If someone throws something in anger during a tournament they should be DQ'd.



Myth #1: throwing things in anger during a tournament is grounds for disqualification.

TRUTH: players are specifically entitled to throw discs in play in anger.

Myth #2: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, should be disqualified.

TRUTH: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, MAY be disqualified by the TD, but the TD has no obligation to do so.


804.05 DISQUALIFICATION AND SUSPENSION
A. A player <font color="red">may</font> be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct, such as loud cursing, throwing things in anger <font color="red">{other than discs in play)</font>, or overt rudeness to anyone present/

Alacrity
May 18 2005, 10:05 AM
Slo,

and this is a point in case where things become blurry. In your case you have specifically stated what is not OB about the concrete. At most tournaments the statement concrete or asphalt is OB is keep you away from the streets. Saying that concrete/asphalt is OB EXCEPT in the following cases is different from what I was talking about and this is where people will argue and leave thinking that if it was touching the grass then it was not OB. There is nothing wrong with setting exceptions, but if you say the concrete/asphalt is like water then if the disc is surrounded it is OB.



Truth: if it is surrounded by water or concrete (when the concrete is OB) then it is OB. If that water or curb is covered with grass it doesn't matter. Look under the grass.

Not necessarily, if declared otherwise beforehand. We have an asphalt road as a major OB obstacle. The edge is decrepit, decayed, and in places, overgrown by Burmuda Grass, in some places by a foot or more. We play it: If the grass is attached, it's good. It's spelled out in a rules summary, placed on every clipboard [usually!].

May 18 2005, 10:55 AM
Fore, the key here is discs in play. If you mark a disk it is no longer in play.

And what, pray tell, is the disc that is thrown during a player's turn to throw, which, most assuredly can and sometimes is thrown in anger, if not the disc in play?

sandalman
May 18 2005, 10:58 AM
slo, in all due respect, there is no point that is closer to the target AND behind the rear of the marker. it might look like it is closer to the target, but its not. if it is behind the arc, it is not closer.

agreed: X's and O'x (and lines, circles, and baskets) would make a ton of sense for the rulebook!

cromwell
May 18 2005, 11:39 AM
myth/truth of the arc debate some more..... here's a handy diagram thanks to photoshop and 3 minutes of spare time.

http://www.ravaged.net/discgolf/dgstance.jpg

Circle is the distance to the pin, pin is the black dot in the middle, green dot is the mark, green line draws the line to the basket, red line is the LOP.

Example A is the alleged "myth". The LOP is a perpendicular line which extends in relation to the line drawn between the basket and the marker. I'll explain below why I actually do believe this to be the correct ruling though.

Example B and C show the proposed "truth". A LOP that bisects the arc around the pin, which allows you to straddle yet still maintain two supporting points that are no closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker. Example C shows one reason I believe this theory to be incorrect: the line from the body to the target is suddenly shorter than a lie which would play from the perpendicular LOP. Taken to an extreme, a 2' putt could have you straddle the entire 4' diameter of the radius which you are not allowed to stand in, and you would be wrapping your body around the basket.

also while we're nitpicking, i understand the argument is from 803.03.A... ."(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc;" which seems to say you can bisect the arc. but 803.03 B also says "B. Stepping past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting within 10 meters."

"Past the marker disc" to me implies that it IS a perpendicular line you must stand behind, meaning Example A above *would* be the correct play. The rule does not say "stepping closer to the pin than your marker disc", it says "stepping past the marker disc".

At the end of the day, most putts will be far enough out that the "arc" only means half an inch or less difference anyway so most of the point is moot. But it would still be interesting to know what the original "intent" of the rule is and what the proper stance should be.

sandalman
May 18 2005, 12:10 PM
to make your complaint against diagram C valid, there would have to be a rule against releasing the disc in front of a plane extending upwards from a line that is perpendicular to the line of play.

i would suggest that 99.95% of all throws violate such a rule. thankfully, such a rule does not exist.

if someone needs help to make a 2' putt into a 2" putt by stretching 4', well, they need more help than this bit of tid provides. :D

May 18 2005, 12:22 PM
Interesting topic. The issue of perpendicular line versus arc appears to me to be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. My trig is a tad rusty, but at a distance of 30ft. from the pole, the advantage of arc over perpendicular line has to be less than 6in, depending on the width of your straddle. Is that significant enough to worry about? Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. Either way that's not the real issue.

The real issue is enforcement. Unless it's a CTP hole, you don't have string tied to the post to effectively measure distances at all. Are any of us truly capable of identifying a violation of this rule with the naked eye if the player is in the ballpark? I'm not. As a player, I make an effort to stay behind a perpendicular line because it removes any measure of controversy. I personally don't believe that the few inches either way would make a difference in whether I can execute the shot, but I know that in the heat of tournament battle, the rule stickler in all of us tends to surface. The point is that rules not only need to be specific and easy to understand, they also need to be easy to enforce on the course.

slo
May 18 2005, 12:23 PM
Alacrity, your original statement was fine. Lacking special conditions like I stated, that's the way to play it.

Sandalman, I was making a feeble attempt to be Devil's Advocate. I think we'll have a more cogent argument, shortly.

Cromwell, I didn't have time to scrutinize your post [leaving soon], but I think those lines should go through the middle of the marker...to delineate the forward, and rear edges.

Parkntwoputt
May 18 2005, 12:23 PM
Exactly how wide does one's straddle stance have to be in order for this example to make an effective difference in the true line of play. This only applies within 10m because you can jump putt from beyond there. At best my widest straddle stance while maintaining balance and control will probably be 4-5ft (36in inseam). But when you are talking about the length of an arc on a circle, I do not know the calc right off the top of my head but at best the radius of the circle would have to be less then 15-16ft.

At that distance, most people never fret over their putt, usually these are should be gimmies that most golfers will make without much thought. Gaining an extra foot, would really not benefit at this distance in my opinion. Because with a standard stance, a person of my height could already get an extra 4ft on the release point of the hand with good balance and follow through which you could not get with a straddle stance.

While these arguments are excellent, I agree that I do not see this coming into play in an actual round, and is probably the reason why it is not specified in the rule book in as great detail as we are talking here.

May 18 2005, 12:26 PM
The arc of any circle from a greater distance ,where this would actually apply, would not be as exaggerted as the diagram. Straddle putting from say 50' away while standing perpindicular to the pin would gain you about 3", unless you have really long legs. I am not concerned about 3" from 50', now when you get closer to the basket the distance gained would be greater because the circle will shrink, thus enabling you to straddle for an advantage. I am not sure if I got my point across or not.

May 18 2005, 12:39 PM
Exactly how wide does one's straddle stance have to be in order for this example to make an effective difference in the true line of play. This only applies within 10m because you can jump putt from beyond there.



How does a "jump putt" change anything since you have to release the disc with at least one supporting point directly behind your mark and any other supporting point no closer to the basket?

Alacrity
May 18 2005, 12:40 PM
Myth #1: throwing things in anger during a tournament is grounds for disqualification.

TRUTH: players are specifically entitled to throw discs in play in anger.

Myth #2: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, should be disqualified.

TRUTH: players who throw things in anger, other than discs in play, MAY be disqualified by the TD, but the TD has no obligation to do so.


804.05 DISQUALIFICATION AND SUSPENSION
A. A player <font color="red">may</font> be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct, such as loud cursing, throwing things in anger <font color="red">{other than discs in play)</font>, or overt rudeness to anyone present/





Sorry, I want to clarify a few things. First I did not say that the player must be disqualified, I said they should be, which is exactly in line with what the rule states. The TD may disqualify the player. If they should not be, then the rule should not have been written at all. Secondly, it is a common myth that you should just put up with temper tantrums that a player has during a round and that is also not true. Anyone who plays in a group with one player who is displaying anger like this knows it affects your game. For a lot of players it distracts them, for some players it focuses them. What must be understood is that throwing things, other than the disc in play, is grounds for DQ. It is not your right to have a fit during a round.

The next item is throwing discs in play. Once you mark your disc and throw it at or into your bag I am assuming it is no longer in play. If I were to announce that you had just exhibited a courtesy violation and that you could be potentially DQ'd from the tournament then I guess you could say that the throw was your disc in play. You would have to clarify that though. Anything toward the target could be interpreted as your throw and hence it was the disc in play, but anything thrown less than two meters not thrown at the target you would have to tell me it was the disc in play.

The point I am trying to make is that throwing things, other than <font color="red">the disc in play</font>, is not just a courtesy violation, it is a DQable offense. There is a difference between DQable violations and simple courtesy violations, a courtesy violation goes away from round to round, but a DQable violation should be considered across all rounds. If the player has a temper tantrum every round, he/she should be DQ'd.

The point I am trying to make is that most of us let a temper tantrum pass, because we don't want to make it worse and yet this is a violation that can result in DQ. Quite a few players believe they have to put up with it and at best they can only call a courtesy violation. This is a myth. It should be treated as a SEVERE violation of the rules. It is amazing that breaking the law could result in an official WARNING of DQ, but that is not required for unsportsmanlike conduct. Also note that cheating and willful destruction of the course are considered DQable offenses.

Few TD's will argue that cheating, course destruction, and smoking pot should not result in DQ, but few TD's consider that displays of temper are reason for DQing someone.

26226
May 18 2005, 12:51 PM
myth/truth of the arc debate some more..... here's a handy diagram thanks to photoshop and 3 minutes of spare time.

http://www.ravaged.net/discgolf/dgstance.jpg

Circle is the distance to the pin, pin is the black dot in the middle, green dot is the mark, green line draws the line to the basket, red line is the LOP.




Umm, no. LOP is the dotted green line, and it should
be continued past the circle.

As long as something of you is supporting you on the dotted
green (LOP) line, and nothing of you is touching, or is
inside of the black circle, it is legal. The red line
is a red herring.:D

:cool:

26226
May 18 2005, 01:02 PM
My favorite Mythical Rule is the Max Score on any hole is Par + 4.

I've also heard plenty of the "dry disc" defense when a disc is suspended on branches <2m over an OB creek.

26226
May 18 2005, 01:11 PM
TRUTH: players are specifically entitled to throw discs in play in anger.




back when I had even less D than I do now, a young friend
to me to "throw angry" to pick up some distance. It worked :cool:

Jroc
May 18 2005, 01:28 PM
Slight thread drift...

OK...I know that the 2m rule has been hashed and re-hashed and re-hashed again and again. I thought I had it strait, then it was going to change this year, then the Rules committe decided not to make any changes to the rules this year, etc...

SO....

The way I understand it, the 2M rule is in effect by default, but the TD has the option to state that it is not in effect (before the tourney begins), instead of the other way around.

Is this correct?

ck34
May 18 2005, 01:31 PM
Yes

Jroc
May 18 2005, 01:33 PM
Thanks Chuck :D

May 18 2005, 01:37 PM
Slight thread drift...

OK...I know that the 2m rule has been hashed and re-hashed and re-hashed again and again. I thought I had it strait, then it was going to change this year, then the Rules committe decided not to make any changes to the rules this year, etc...

SO....

The way I understand it, the 2M rule is in effect by default, but the TD has the option to state that it is not in effect (before the tourney begins), instead of the other way around.

Is this correct?



Actually you are sort of correct. The RC recommended what you initially heard, but the Board of Directors voted to wait till the printing of a new Rule Book in 2006 to make the elimination of the 2 meter rule the default condition. So 2005 is a transition year in whcih the 2 meter rule is the default, but a TD can waive the 2 meter rule by announcing it at the start up meeting if he/she so chooses.

In 2006, the 2 meter rule is eliminated (as the default condition, but i believe if a TD so chooses it can be invoked for particular trees, holes or for a whole course).

Jroc
May 18 2005, 01:45 PM
Actually you are sort of correct. The RC recommended what you initially heard, but the Board of Directors voted to wait till the printing of a new Rule Book in 2006 to make the elimination of the 2 meter rule the default condition. So 2005 is a transition year in whcih the 2 meter rule is the default, but a TD can waive the 2 meter rule by announcing it at the start up meeting if he/she so chooses.

In 2006, the 2 meter rule is eliminated (but i believe if a TD so chooses it can be invoked for particular trees, holes or for a whole course).



Yeah, thats what I understood...I just wasnt sure what the default rule was now. Thanks for the further clarification :D

cromwell
May 18 2005, 01:57 PM
the "default rule" is the rule. which is to say the 2M rule is in effect. The td's just have a greater leniency in eliminating that rule for their event if they should choose to do so.

Yes, sorry, confused my verbiage above on LOP... but the red line isnt a red herring, it is still the marker of how close one can stand based on your mark, whether it is perpendicular to the LOP or whether it may be angled to support the "off foot may be around the arc" point of view.

And the red line *should* be from the rear of the marker, since that's as close as you're allowed to stand.

May 18 2005, 02:08 PM
Okay, you had suggested the Rules Committee (RC) changed their mind, but in fact it was the Board of Directors that decided to wait until 2006 (they realized a new Rule Book wouldn't be out until then and the concern was that the latest rule book should properly list default rules).

May 18 2005, 02:23 PM
Myth: If my disc lands on a bridge that hasn't been declared OB, the status of being IB or OB depends upon the status of what is below the disc. If the disc is vertically surrounded by OB water -- then it is OB.

Rule: The RC has ruled that the bridge is a playing surface so what is below the bridge does not matter. Unless the TD declares the bridge OB, on the bridge = In Bounds.

do i have this right, DGRZ's?

May 18 2005, 02:27 PM
Sorry, I want to clarify a few things. First I did not say that the player must be disqualified, I said they should be, which is exactly in line with what the rule states. The TD may disqualify the player. If they should not be, then the rule should not have been written at all.

"Should" and "may" are not synonymous: "should" connotes obligation, necessity, or expectation; "may" implies only permission. The fact that throwing a disc in anger, other than the disc in play, is grounds for disqualification in no way implies that disqualification is expected, much less obligatory.


Secondly, it is a common myth that you should just put up with temper tantrums that a player has during a round and that is also not true.

Temper tantrums are dealt with in 803.01.B. Repeated violations of 801.01 are sufficient grounds for disqualification, but, again, TDs are under no obligation to DQ a player for discourteous behavior.


The next item is throwing discs in play. Once you mark your disc and throw it at or into your bag I am assuming it is no longer in play.

That's not the scenario posed in your original Myth/Truth post. Your original post makes an unqualified assertion that throwing a disc in anger should result in DQ, without mention of the exception to that condition specifically set forth in 804.05.A; therefore, quite apart from the issue of whether or not "may" implies "should," while it is true that throwing discs other than the disc in play in anger is grounds of disqualification, the simple, unqualified, assertion that "throwing discs in anger is grounds for disqualification" is untrue, and therefore, a myth.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not a TD "should" or "should not" disqualify a player for throwing a disc other than the disc in play in anger, whether or not temper tantrums are acceptable behavior, or whether or not it's "fair" to other players to have to put up with another player's tantrum; it has only to do with the erroneous claims that throwing a disc in anger, irregardless of the circumstance under which the disc is thrown, is grounds for disqualification, and that disqualification for such action is in any way obligatory or expected.

May 18 2005, 02:47 PM
Myth: If my disc lands on a bridge that hasn't been declared OB, the status of being IB or OB depends upon the status of what is below the disc. If the disc is vertically surrounded by OB water -- then it is OB.

Rule: The RC has ruled that the bridge is a playing surface so what is below the bridge does not matter. Unless the TD declares the bridge OB, on the bridge = In Bounds.

do i have this right, DGRZ's?

Formally, but perhaps not practically, i.e. if the bridge itself is completely surrounded by OB (such as a bridge on property adjacent to but not part of the course or the bridge connecting sections of the OB kiddie playground at Kentwood Park), it may not be necessary for a TD to declare the bridge OB in order for a disc that lands on the bridge to be OB. :)

slo
May 18 2005, 03:00 PM
http://www.ravaged.net/discgolf/dgstance.jpg You seem to be avoiding this one, fore...hashed out? It really would be keen for you to provide a diagram, but that's getting into expectations of others...would be nice, though. :p

gnduke
May 18 2005, 03:02 PM
True, Everything is IB until the TD declares it to be OB.

May 18 2005, 03:21 PM
Myth: If my disc lands on a bridge that hasn't been declared OB, the status of being IB or OB depends upon the status of what is below the disc. If the disc is vertically surrounded by OB water -- then it is OB.

Rule: The RC has ruled that the bridge is a playing surface so what is below the bridge does not matter. Unless the TD declares the bridge OB, on the bridge = In Bounds.

do i have this right, DGRZ's?

Formally, but perhaps not practically, i.e. if the bridge itself is completely surrounded by OB (such as a bridge on property adjacent to but not part of the course or the bridge connecting sections of the OB kiddie playground at Kentwood Park), it may not be necessary for a TD to declare the bridge OB in order for a disc that lands on the bridge to be OB. :)



Felix, I'll take that as "in general, yes." It seems to me that if a TD declares that all discs landing in an adjacent state (say Ohio) are OB, it would be absurd (redundant) for him or her to then name every bridge completely within that state as also being OB.

May 18 2005, 04:58 PM
It seems to me that if a TD declares that all discs landing in an adjacent state (say Ohio) are OB, it would be absurd (redundant) for him or her to then name every bridge completely within that state as also being OB.

In principle, that may be true, however, given the lengths some players are apparently willing to go to attempt to save a stroke (e.g., the "if a thrown disc is touching grass that has grown from IB to OB, it's IB" argument), it may be imprudent simply to assume that players will automaticaly or naturally treat a bridge completely surrounded by OB as OB if other bridges that cross over, but are not completely surrounded by, OB are treated as IB, especially given the use in some locales of "island" greens: "That bridge isn't OB, it's a landing zone!" (At Kentwood, e.g., there are two small IB foot-bridges that cross OB gullies, in addition to the bridge in the kiddie playground, so it's probably not a good idea for a TD simply to say that if a disc is on a bridge, it's IB.)

(There's at least one TD in the area who always announces that anything outside the park boundaries is OB. Shouldn't need to do so, but the day he forgets to do so, you can pretty much count on some joker trying to take advantage of the oversight.)

Alacrity
May 18 2005, 05:07 PM
Going back and re-reading what I had written, I can see now why you clarified the disc in play. I had not meant the disc in play, but I see that I did not specifically state that. I was actually thinking of a thread in which a player kicked his bag and discs went flying. Thank you for clarifying that.

As far as whether the TD should or should not DQ the player, the word "may" implies only permission, as stated, and the word "should" connotes obligation, necessity, or expectation. The point was, the rule was written to denote the seriousiousness of these actions, which are often ignored by players. The words "may" and "should", however, are much more closely associated with each other than the words "will" and "must". I did not say the player must be DQ'd, I said should be. And once again you seem to be missing the point, it is a myth that players can act like a**es on the course and suffer little disciplanary action. I have seen Open players kick bags and have a temper tantrum both in frustration and in an attempt to distract competition. I once played with an open player that did this and I found out years later that it was a technique he used to brow beat. No one had ever reported his actions to the TD because most players believe nothing can be done. To make you happy I will reword it:

Myth: A player having a temper tantrum, throwing his/her bag and discs not in play, can only receive a courtesy warning for their action or should be ignored.

Truth: A player having a temper tantrum, throwing his/her bag and discs not in play, can receive a courtesy warning for their actions. This offense is considered a serious breach of the rules of Disc Golf and could result in a DQ for such activity..

I have never had this happen to me, but I know several players that it has happened to. Temper is so acceptable on a course that physical violence has been threatened. If we crack down on tantrums, then this will become a non-issue.



None of this has anything to do with whether or not a TD "should" or "should not" disqualify a player for throwing a disc other than the disc in play in anger, whether or not temper tantrums are acceptable behavior, or whether or not it's "fair" to other players to have to put up with another player's tantrum; it has only to do with the erroneous claims that throwing a disc in anger, irregardless of the circumstance under which the disc is thrown, is grounds for disqualification, and that disqualification for such action is in any way obligatory or expected.

May 18 2005, 09:05 PM
In the following crudely drawn diagram, is a situation I have been seeking a clear ruling.

http://coastalbendbloodcenter.org/mike/obwatertree.jpg

We have trees that grow branches over a pond. The pond is declared OB. The disc is way above 2m. Some people will say OB because it's over water. Some people will say your inbounds but 2m up so you get a penalty stroke. IF ob is true and 2m is true, then this situation would cost you 2 strokes, 1 is a penalty for being 2m up and 1 for being OB. What is the official ruling?

Also,
If the disc hit the tree and fell into the water, where would you spot the lie, would it be where the disc first flew over water, or would it be down by the tree?

slo
May 18 2005, 09:27 PM
Here's a hint: It's not both. And, if you played it as a 2-M call, where would YOU mark the lie?

jconnell
May 18 2005, 09:40 PM
803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08.


Not a tough call when it is explicitly spelled out in the rule book.


Also, If the disc hit the tree and fell into the water, where would you spot the lie, would it be where the disc first flew over water, or would it be down by the tree?


Where did it hit the tree? Did it hit a part of the tree that was hanging over an IB playing surface or did it hit a part of the tree hanging over the water? Remember that just because the tree is rooted in an IB area, that does not make the entire tree an IB object. It follows the same principal as the rule quoted above. If the disc had stuck where it hit the tree, would it be marked in-bounds or out-of-bounds? Where it made contact with the tree will determine whether the last in-bounds point is under the tree on IB ground or where the disc first crossed from land over water.

--Josh

May 18 2005, 10:09 PM
And once again you seem to be missing the point, it is a myth that players can act like a**es on the course and suffer little disciplanary action.

Actually, I think you're missing the point: I'm not disputing that players should suffer the consequences of their unseemly behavior: what I am disputing is that the rule in any way requires or expects a TD to act. Yes, it would be better if TDs did exercise the option to DQ a player for unseemly behavior than simply overlook it; yes, if two or three players were actually DQ'ed for unsportsmanlike conduct, others would likely shape up or at least tone their act down; yes, the sport would be better for it. But the point is, and always has been, that however desirable DQ'ing misbehaving players may be, the Rules, in their current form, merely empower a TD to act; they in no way expect or require her to do so.

Parkntwoputt
May 19 2005, 09:11 AM
You would only take 1 penalty stroke. And declare the lie where the disc was last in bounds. Probably close to the tree near the edge of the water is where I would declare the drop.

You are not double penalized, or else it would be two strokes for going into a body of water. One stroke for going OB, and a second for losing a disc. It follows the same logic as being stuck >2m above an OB area.

May 22 2005, 01:28 PM
Myth: when 2 or more DGRZ's are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide ear plugs to the other players on the card.

Fact(?): DGRZ are an asset to the sport and anyone who says otherwise ought to be given an open book rules pop quiz. Each question answered incorrectly will result in a stroke. :p

May 22 2005, 02:35 PM
Myth: when 2 or more DGRZ's are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide ear plugs to the other players on the card.



Fact: when two or more DRGZ are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide Valium� to the other players on the card, cuz they don't need it at the start the round, they will before it's over. :p

May 22 2005, 02:57 PM
Myth: when 2 or more DGRZ's are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide ear plugs to the other players on the card.



Fact: when two or more DRGZ are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide Valium� to the other players on the card, cuz they don't need it at the start the round, they will before it's over. :p



haven't touched the stuff in 15 years in part due to our nation's inconsistent drug laws, but wouldn't providing some maryjane (aka: happy cabbage, hippie lettuce,etc.) be the same basic act except for the makers of Valium wouldn't profit therefrom? :p

wouldn't giving out drugs be against the rules? :o :confused: :eek: :p

May 22 2005, 07:01 PM
Myth: when 2 or more DGRZ's are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide ear plugs to the other players on the card.



Fact: when two or more DRGZ are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide Valium� to the other players on the card, cuz they don't need it at the start the round, they will before it's over. :p



haven't touched the stuff in 15 years in part due to our nation's inconsistent drug laws, but wouldn't providing some maryjane (aka: happy cabbage, hippie lettuce,etc.) be the same basic act except for the makers of Valium wouldn't profit therefrom? :p

wouldn't giving out drugs be against the rules? :o :confused: :eek: :p

804.05.A(4). Consuming Valium ain't illegal (dispensing w/o a license may be, but consumption ain't). :D

May 23 2005, 01:40 AM
Myth: when 2 or more DGRZ's are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide ear plugs to the other players on the card.



Fact: when two or more DRGZ are paired together, the TD is obligated to provide Valium� to the other players on the card, cuz they don't need it at the start the round, they will before it's over. :p



haven't touched the stuff in 15 years in part due to our nation's inconsistent drug laws, but wouldn't providing some maryjane (aka: happy cabbage, hippie lettuce,etc.) be the same basic act except for the makers of Valium wouldn't profit therefrom? :p

wouldn't giving out drugs be against the rules? :o :confused: :eek: :p

804.05.A(4). Consuming Valium ain't illegal (dispensing w/o a license may be, but consumption ain't). :D



Felix, are you sponsored by the makers of Valium? Those pharmaceutical companies sure are well connected politically. Safe and legal are beginning to diverge in ways detrimental to the American consumer... oops, that may be thread drift :D

May 26 2005, 04:49 PM
Played with a guy today who still thought you marked your lie by turning your disc over 180 degrees. I said I didn't think that was in the rule book, he said everybody at his course does it that way and it's legal.

I guess somebody in his area should crack open the rule book one day.

May 27 2005, 12:26 AM
What works for recreational disc golf is one thing and professional disc golf another. I don't see it as any big deal except in PDGA sanctioned play. (however i always mark my disc unless leaving the one i threw down gives me a better lie, because i want following the rules to be natural)

hazard
Jun 10 2005, 05:26 AM
Myth: A disc in a stream declared not to be OB but not declared as a special condition is played from where it entered the stream.

Truth: Wade in, take casual relief (which is not what is described above), or declare an unplayable lie. I've heard an argument that you can combine casual relief and an unplayable/undesirable lie to get up to 10 meters on the LOP for only one stroke (granted, in that situation a special condition should probably have been declared at the very least) but I don't buy it...DGRZ's, does that work or not?

Hey, someone tell me if this one is a myth or not. Have or have not the rules been cleared up to the point where it is definitively not legal to stand with one foot behind your mini on a putt (within ten meters) and the other well forward of it, lift the front foot, release the disc, land with all supporting points behind the lie, demonstrate balance, and then retrieve the disc?

gnduke
Jun 10 2005, 05:31 AM
I have heard the arguments for taking casual relief of 5 meters and etsablishing a lie without penalty, then declaring an unsafe lie from that point. That would effectively give you 10 meters of relief on LOP .

Technically there is nothing illegal with the putt you described, but it does go against the spirit of the rules and could be considered cheating. The only penalty for cheating is DQ.

jconnell
Jun 10 2005, 12:06 PM
I have heard the arguments for taking casual relief of 5 meters and etsablishing a lie without penalty, then declaring an unsafe lie from that point. That would effectively give you 10 meters of relief on LOP.


I disagree that it would be legal to use the rules in that manner to get 10 meters of relief. I think it's an either/or situation with casual relief vs. unsafe lie.


803.04 (2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.


It's that use of "alternatively" that leads me to believe that if you can't get relief on the LOP within 5 meters, you can use the unsafe lie rule to relocate from the original lie. That rule allows for a player to get relief to one side or the other within 5 meters of the original, but not necessarily on the LOP.


Technically there is nothing illegal with the putt you described, but it does go against the spirit of the rules and could be considered cheating. The only penalty for cheating is DQ.


I think that's a bit harsh to consider it cheating. It's not a willful circumvention of the rules, since it does explicitly comply with them. I don't see where a putt like that described would be advantageous over setting up completely behind the mark and putting normally. It's not a common practice not because it is against the "spirit" of the rules, but because it's rather impractical and in-effective in most situations.

--Josh

ck34
Jun 10 2005, 12:27 PM
Adding unsafe relief to casual relief to get up to 10m back on the LOP is acceptable and a well trodden path in tournament play, especially in MN. This issue, in fact, lead to creating the drop zone option available in the Special Conditions rules 804.01B so players didn't have to accumulate compound penalties where they needed to go more than 10m back on the LOP and end up with a 2-throw penalty in large marshes that have ill-defined boundaries and are too large to mark as OB.

gnduke
Jun 10 2005, 12:29 PM
I would disagree with the the "push away" putt giving no advantage, on really windy days it adds about 3' to the drop in range. I don't agree with the cheating argument, but it is the only one I have heard against it that is at all based on the letter of the rules.

On the combination of casual relief and unsafe lie, I had not researched it, just remember it being mentioned on a course and the reasoning behind it the player gave. He did not try it at the time, and I hadn't given it any further thought.

Sharky
Jun 10 2005, 12:32 PM
Interesting, I never thought about combining the casual obstacle, no penalty, up to 5 meter on the LOP with the declaring an unsafe lie rule that costs a stroke but allows moving the lie up to 5 meters not closer to the hole. The unsafe lie spot does not have to be on the line of play.

bruce_brakel
Jun 10 2005, 12:37 PM
I would disagree with the the "push away" putt giving no advantage, on really windy days it adds about 3' to the drop in range. I don't agree with the cheating argument, but it is the only one I have heard against it that is at all based on the letter of the rules.

On the combination of casual relief and unsafe lie, I had not researched it, just remember it being mentioned on a course and the reasoning behind it the player gave. He did not try it at the time, and I hadn't given it any further thought.

Here I am in my office practicing a push away putt trying to see how you gain any advantage from this awkward throw... :D

Sharky
Jun 10 2005, 12:38 PM
I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with someone having there off foot past the lie and raising it before the disc is released and maintaining balance behind the lie after the shot. Innovative and 100% legal.

ck34
Jun 10 2005, 12:44 PM
I've done the push putt in league with ams in my group just to mess with them. They can't find anything in the rulebook to make it illegal.

Let's say you have a rope and there's telephone pole one foot behind your lie. I believe you could throw a loop around the pole, hold the rope with your left hand, lean forward toward the basket while still keeping your feet behind your lie and toss the putt with your right hand. Great cover photo for DGWN?

gnduke
Jun 10 2005, 12:50 PM
That would also be legal according to the rules.

Bruce, it really comes into play when your lie is about 6' from the basket. With a regular putt, you have to fly the disc about 3', with the push away putt, you are able to drop the disc into the basket as soon as you push off with your lead foot. The timing is a little hard to get at first, but with 20+ mph winds, it is very effective. Never used it in a PDGA round though.

bruce_brakel
Jun 10 2005, 01:05 PM
Clearly it is one of those things that is not illegal but you have to wonder if it is covered somewhere in Leviticus or Deuteronomy as immoral! :D

jconnell
Jun 10 2005, 01:07 PM
Adding unsafe relief to casual relief to get up to 10m back on the LOP is acceptable and a well trodden path in tournament play, especially in MN. This issue, in fact, lead to creating the drop zone option available in the Special Conditions rules 804.01B so players didn't have to accumulate compound penalties where they needed to go more than 10m back on the LOP and end up with a 2-throw penalty in large marshes that have ill-defined boundaries and are too large to mark as OB.



If there are these large marshes that have ill-defined boundaries and are too large to mark OB, why wouldn't the TD declare that relief of greater than 5m on the LOP was acceptable? He's allowed to do that by rule and it makes sense to me to do that if it's such an issue on this particular course. The drop zone is also a good option now that it is in the rule book, but prior to that becoming an option, why wasn't additional relief declared by the TD to alleviate the situation?

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of taking unsafe relief from a lie that doesn't exist. If you're disc lands in location A, your relief options should be location B (anywhere up to 5-meters back on the LOP) or location C (proceeding according to the unsafe lie rule). Location B would be your first option, but if you aren't able to find a playable lie within 5 meters, there is no location B and you should proceed to find a location C with penalty.

I don't really care that it is a well-trodden path in past tournament play. I believe that using those rules in combination is not in accordance with the rules. There were other options available back then, and there are even more options available now.

--Josh

ck34
Jun 10 2005, 01:19 PM
The drop zone is also a good option now that it is in the rule book, but prior to that becoming an option, why wasn't additional relief declared by the TD to alleviate the situation?




The option for the TD to provide additional relief was also not available back then. We had players taking as many as a 3-shot penalty in the early 90s in one case where the player landed 2m in a tree in the middle of the marsh in PDGA play. The Rules Committee indicated that was the correct ruling at the time and also agreed something needed to be done, and it has.

ck34
Jun 10 2005, 01:24 PM
As far as the precedent for using unsafe rule after a lie has been relocated by another rule, just look at a disc suspended less than 2m and say less than 1m from an OB fence. The player gets free relief to move the disc down and mark the lie on the ground AND up to 1m from the OB. If they don't like those options, they can then invoke the unsafe lie rule with a penalty.

lonhart
Jun 10 2005, 01:58 PM
Use of "Alternatively" in the rule strongly indicates it is an either this OR that. It was not worded "In addition" or "One can also"... My take is that you can gain casual relief in the manner stated in the rule, but if you are still impeded witin that 5 m LOP, then you can move off the line of play but must add a stroke for doing so.

Also, I agree that having a point of contact in front of the marker is irrelevant as long as the rule is followed, which requires that the point of contact at the time of release is closest to the pin, is in line of play, and no further than 30 cm from the rear edge of the marker/disc. Having to push backwards as you release is not easy, nor is contorting your body to maintain control. Unless you are on an incline and putting uphill...

Cheers,
Steve

rhett
Jun 10 2005, 02:02 PM
Chuck, your disc suspended scenario isn't even close to the same situation. With a suspended disc, you establish your lie by marking it on the playing surface. This is not a relocation and never has been. Once you mark your lie, then you can relocate it up to one meter away from the OB line. Please refrain from "pulling a Nick" and spending the next 50 posts whining about marking on the playing surface is really relief. Under our current rules, it is not relief. It is how you mark your lie.

Taking double-relief just doesn't sit well. Especially considering the "alternatively" language that was quoted earlier. I think your MN Tourney History of taking double relief is very very questionable and probably illegal.

ck34
Jun 10 2005, 02:18 PM
Perhaps the suspended lie is not relief but the 1m from OB still is. I was a member of the Rules Committee at the time of the aforementioned marsh scenarios. So those were much discussed and valid interpretations among the group, which eventually led to the changes.

By its nature, the Unsafe Lie rule is an "additive" rule because it cannot be applied until after a lie is determined by another rule. I cannot choose to use the Unsafe Lie rule by itself before I identify the proper lie in the event there's a suspended lie, an OB, a missed mando, a lost disc, or just marking a "normal" lie. All of those require another rule to determine the lie before the Unsafe Lie can be applied. Imagine losing a disc and just saying I'll just take the Unsafe Lie 2-shot penalty and relocate on the fairway no closer to the hole. I believe the player must first take the 1-shot penalty for the lost disc, identify the lie and then take the 2-shot Unsafe penalty from there. So, in the case of casual relief, the player uses the rule to first identify a potential lie up to 5m back on the LOP, then gets to apply the Unsafe Lie rule in addition to the position from the identified lie if they so choose.

neonnoodle
Jun 10 2005, 04:03 PM
Please refrain from "pulling a Nick" and spending the next 50 posts whining about marking on the playing surface is really relief. Under our current rules, it is not relief. It is how you mark your lie.



Reading Comprehension 101: That is "Pulling a Bruce". Pulling a Nick is pointing out Bruce's and now your mistake. ;)

Jun 10 2005, 06:40 PM
Hey, someone tell me if this one is a myth or not. Have or have not the rules been cleared up to the point where it is definitively not legal to stand with one foot behind your mini on a putt (within ten meters) and the other well forward of it, lift the front foot, release the disc, land with all supporting points behind the lie, demonstrate balance, and then retrieve the disc?

Absent a formal RC ruling to the contrary, the "crane" stance is presumed to be legal (http://www.pdga.com/discus/messages/42/5341.html?TuesdayMay1420020254pm#POST22300)

Sharky
Jun 23 2005, 06:56 PM
Might as well post this one here although I think it is a real rule.

We were discussing this mando rule on the local disc web site and then it actually came up for myself and my partner during our best disc doubles round at Calvert this week :eek:

Here it is:
You throw and your disc makes it around the mando on the correct side and then somehow (tight turn, branches, funny roller, whatever) comes back and lands on the incorrect side of the mando and not beyond the mando line. (has not "got" to the mando yet even though it has actually gotten to the correct side then traveled back)

Question:
Are you free to play to the hole any way you want because you have made the mando or do you have to go around the mando again on the correct side?

Jun 23 2005, 07:04 PM
Good question... on the subject on mandos... if a drop zone is not designated by the TD at the beginning of the tourny, isn't the default drop zone the teepad?

quickdisc
Jun 23 2005, 07:28 PM
Once the plane is broken , your golden !!!!!!

Doesn't matter what the disc does , AFTER it makes the mando , unless it goes out of bounds !!!!! :eek:

Finish the hole normally.

ck34
Jun 23 2005, 07:38 PM
From the Rules Q&A: In cases where the drop zone is not designated, the lie is marked within five meters of the mandatory object and one meter behind the mandatory line which extends from the correct side of the mandatory.

gnduke
Jun 23 2005, 07:38 PM
Part of the rulebook definition of both missing and passing a mandatory object include references where the disc comes to rest. If you look to the safety aspect of mandatories, this makes perfect sense. If your lie (where the disc came to rest) is short of the mandatory line, then the safety reason for the mandatory still exists, and there is reason to still throw around the mandatory object. If you have passed the mandatory line, then you should be beyond the area that the mandatory is there to protect. While this is not always the case, it is generally a reasonable assumption.


Rules cited.:
803.11 Mandatories
B. ...A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.

C.A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if it passes the correct side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line. ...



It works something like this.

1). The first question is where the disc comes to rest?
a) If it is short of the mandatory line, you have neither missed nor passed the mandatory regardless of how it came to be there.
b) If it is past the mandatory line, you have either missed or passed the Mandatory. Proceed to question 2.

2). Did the disc pass the mandatory on the correct side ?
a) If the answer is no, you missed the mandatory. Proceed to the drop zone with a stroke penalty.
b) If the answer is yes, Proceed to question 3.

3) Was the disc traveling in the proper direction when it passed on the correct side of the mandatory object.
a) If the disc was traveling backwards on the hole the only time it crossed on the correct side of the mandatory object, You have missed the mandatory.
b) If the disc was traveling from tee to basket when it crossed on the correct side of the mandatory, you have passed the mandatory, and it is no longer in play.

Your described shot failed to pass test 1 so the mandatory still needed to be negotiated. There would be no penalty applied.

In response to the second question, consult the rules Q&amp;A.
The Q&amp;A very strongly states that this should never happen. The TD/Course designer is responsible for clearly marking Mandos and drop zones.


Rules Q&amp;A
Rule Question: No mando drop zone
Question: What if I go to an event, miss the mandatory and there's no Drop Zone marked?
Mark it within five meters of the mandatory on the correct side, and one meter behind the line.

ck34
Jun 23 2005, 07:55 PM
Your described shot failed to pass test 1 so the mandatory still needed to be negotiated. There would be no penalty applied.



Nope. 803.11 C indicates the player has successfully passed the mando with the statement: "Once the mandatory has been passed on the correct side, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole." The fact that earlier in that paragraph it indicates that "a way" but not necessarily "only way" a mandatory is successfully traversed involves landing past the line does not specifically exclude the option where the disc does not end up across the line.

However, the group or spotter must clearly observe the route the disc traverses to confirm the disc passed the mando line correctly albeit briefly. It's kind of like confirming a soccer or hockey goal that just needs to break the line. As an addendum, the player would then be able to throw across the wrong side of the mando line for their next shot if that made sense.

gnduke
Jun 23 2005, 08:00 PM
While I agree with what you are quoting, I have to stick with what I quoted. The difference is that you quote once the mando is passed, and I quoted what must occur before the mando is passed.

Clearly from 803.11.C if the disc comes to rest short of the mandatory line, it has not passed the mandatory since the requirements are that the disc pass the mandatory object on the correct side and come to rest completely beyond the mandatory line.

Unless of course there is a rewrite that is more current than the online version. :cool:

ck34
Jun 23 2005, 08:04 PM
since one of the requirements is that the disc come to rest completely beyond the mandatory line



You added the word "requirement" but it's not in the rule. The way it's written, it's just one way the mando is successfully completed. The last line in that paragraph states that the line just has to be passed to be completed with no regard for where the disc lands. It's not written as well as it should be but no where does it state that the disc "must" land past the line or "only" land past the line or is "required" to land beyond the line.

gnduke
Jun 23 2005, 08:19 PM
I will admit that was my understanding of the rule until I reread the rule for this question. Here was my thinking


803.11.C. A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if


I expect a definition or list of requirements/qualifications/determining factors to follow such a beginning. I find a comma delimited list of things with the conjunctive 'and'. This leads me to believe that all of these qualifications must be met to meet the introductory statement.

it passes the correct side of the mandatory,


Cool, pass on the correct side. Got that.

crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee,


OK, so if someone throws onthe wrong side, and it rolls back on the correct side, they can't say they passed the mando.

and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.


Whoa, where the disc ends up is important too ? That's not what I thought.

What does the rest of the paragraph say ?

Once the mandatory has been passed on the correct side, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.


Well since the first sentence in the paragraph described the term used in the second part of the paragraph all of the conditions must be met for the second part to be applicable. Otherwise, 2 of the three conditions listed in the first sentence are useless. I guess they mean "mandatory has been passed on the correct side" as described in the first part of the paragraph.

This is backed up by the reading of section paragraph B. which also includes a reference to where the disc comes to rest in determining the failing to pass the mandatory.

If I am wrong, please explain the addition of the words and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line" and how they should be interpreted ?

hitec100
Jun 23 2005, 08:31 PM
Thanks, gnduke. That helped me understand a rule I'd only read cursorily before. (I've only had a couple occasions where I've encountered a mandatory so far.)

ck34
Jun 23 2005, 08:43 PM
I follow what you're saying, but the way it was written doesn't lock down the "ONLY" way a mando can be successfully completed. The wording needs to be clarified next time around. It's another example of Carlton's first level of evaluating a situation, "If it does not explicitly say it's against the rules then it's probably OK." The rule doesn't say anywhere that passing the mando on the correct side but still landing on the short side means you haven't completed it. All we can go on is that passing the mando object on the correct side (which is the intent of it anyway) constitutes successful completion regardless where the disc ends up.

jconnell
Jun 23 2005, 09:14 PM
I follow what you are saying Gary and it's rather hard to argue against the logic, but wouldn't your interpretation of the rule prevent U-turn mandatories? I have played not one, but two courses recently where a mandatory sat at the apex of a U-turning hole. Tee and basket were probably no more than 100 feet apart, but foliage in between them prevented a direct line (or the course designer didn't want players to force a "cheater" route through it). To protect this foliage, a mandatory was established to force shots around the shule through the open space of the fairway. So you must play to the mandatory about 100 feet from the tee before turning and going back the 150 or so feet back to the basket.

The result of the design is that a good shot (maybe a steep hyzer or a cut roller) can navigate the mandatory on the correct side, then come back toward the basket and still land in an area that is technically between the tee and mandatory. I would say that the mandatory has been passed in that case and allow the player to continue on directly toward the basket in that case. But I think your interpretation might have that player throwing again around the mando so that the disc lands in a place that it is further from the tee than the mando is before he can proceed to throw toward the basket.

How would you interpret that case?

--Josh

slo
Jun 23 2005, 09:23 PM
803.11 C. A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if it passes the correct side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line. Once the mandatory has been passed on the correct side, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.

How is there more than one way to satisy all three conditions?

ck34
Jun 23 2005, 09:38 PM
How is there more than one way to satisfy all three conditions?



They are not specified in a way that makes them the only conditions to complete a mandatory. For example, the statement "a disc golfer is a person who plays disc golf in Minnesota" has three conditions (person, plays disc golf, in MN). These don't exclude the possibility that a disc golfer is a person who plays disc golf in Wisconsin. If the only way to be a disc golfer is to play in Minnesota, then it would have to say something like "the only people called disc golfers are those who play in Minnesota" or "you must play disc golf in Minnesota to be called a disc golfer."

hitec100
Jun 23 2005, 11:31 PM
How is there more than one way to satisfy all three conditions?



They are not specified in a way that makes them the only conditions to complete a mandatory.


Actually, Chuck, that's exactly how the 803.11c rule is written. "If this, this AND that" means all three conditions must be met.

I keep re-reading the rule, and I don't see that there's any ambiguity at all. I sometimes mistake your sense of humor in your posts -- are you just having fun with gnduke? Or are you really having trouble understanding the rule as written?

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 12:23 AM
If you insert the word "only" as the fourth word in 803.11C then it would be "the only" way a mandatory can be completed. But without it, the statement is just one of potentially several ways it can be completed.

And Josh points out an example of a cutback mando where it wouldn't allow a player to cleverly throw a cut roller around the mando tree. It's weird because most of our rules are based on where the disc lands so there's no confusion if players aren't able to see the throw. That's partly why we have baskets instead of post targets. However, the nature of the mando rule "requires" the group to watch every shot and confirm or deny passing on the correct side. There's really no way to write the rule where the final position of the disc is all that matters. Thus, the primary thing that matters is the dynamic watching of the flight to make the call.

Actually, reading the rule 803.11 B, it's the same thing. The word "only" is missing there, too. If your disc crosses the wrong side of the mando line and comes to rest back short of the line, the player would have missed the mando. From a practical standpoint, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. If you're off to the side just short of the mando line, taking a penalty and going to the drop zone is probably just as good as trying to snap a shot around the corner of the mando to advance.

gnduke
Jun 24 2005, 12:25 AM
I had always thought that once you cleared the mandatory line, you were good and where your shot ended up was not important. I can't support that interpretation after carefully reading of the rule.

The only reason I could think of for the rule to read like it does is when the mando is used for safeties sake. If your throw does not make it past the mandatory line, the reason for having the mandatory is still presnet for the next shot.

Under that situation, it makes sense to still force play around the mandatory.

If the RC makes a Q&A I'll follow their lead, until then I'll have to call it the way I read it.

gnduke
Jun 24 2005, 12:40 AM
The only difficulty I see with a u-turn mandatory is that the course designer or TD needs to mark a more reasonable mandatory line than the one provided by the rules.

I don't know why they put in 3 components for passing or missing mandatories. I don't know why they added the wording passing on the correct side or incorrect side immediately before and after the 3-part definitions. The two definitions are mutually exclusive unless the shorter builds upon the 3-part.

The question is why would you add the 3-part definition if the simpler one part definition is meant to be used. It's a waste of space and adds confusion.

And in a rule book setting a take a definitive statement like "xxx is true if aaa, bbb, and ccc" to be a definition of the things required to get to xxx. If any of those things are missing, you did not get to xxx.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 12:46 AM
You're reading things that aren't there. You're saying that on a cutback mando, if a player throws a tee shot just short of, and next to, the mando, then reaches around it to flick the next shot toward the basket, you would tell him he hadn't made the mando because the disc was on the short side of the line? I'd like to see that call.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 12:49 AM
It wouldn't be the only place the rulebook wording was discovered to need clarification or rewriting. But as it is, crossing the line on either side is enough to make it or miss it without any other conditions.

lonhart
Jun 24 2005, 02:02 AM
I've pasted the whole rule below. The original question, as I understood it, was that a disc passed the mandatory on the correct side, then was deflected/rolled back towards the mando and came to rest behind the mando line (on the tee-side of the line rather than the basket-side).

On my home course, when a mando is used, either chalk, rope or spray paint is used to clearly delineate the mando line. If it is a single mando, this line originates at a point (often the base of a tree) and extends in some direction on the incorrect side for quite a while, then is extrapolated to infinity. I've always seen this marked ONLY on one side of the mando. If is is a double mando, it's a line on either side of two points that the disc needs to travel between.

Section C defines how to correctly "pass" a mando. My reading of it is like gnduke's: if the disc does a, b, and c, it has passed. There is no mention that once the disc crossed the mando line from the correct direction and on the correct side that the mando can be ignored prior to the disc coming to rest. The third part indicates it is direction, crossing, AND where it comes to rest;altogether, these define a passed mando.

However I think this rule stinks given that interpretation. If I had a roller that went beyond the mando line on the correct side but then rolled back over the mando line (on either side--correct or incorrect), I would like to play it disregarding the mando. In my mind I went around the mando, on the correct side and the mando is over. But reading this rule (again), I am not sure that is correct. And reading section D further makes me think that if you are on the tee-side of the mando line, no matter what has happened on your prior throws, you still need to "pass" the mando, since your lie has to play to the mando, and not the hole.

803.11 MANDATORIES
A. A mandatory restricts the path the disc may take to the target. A disc must pass to the correct side of the mandatory before the hole is completed.

B. A disc passing the incorrect side of the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.
(1) The mandatory line is the line marked by the director or course designer to indicate when a disc has passed the mandatory.
(2) If no line is marked, the mandatory line is defined as a straight line through the mandatory, perpendicular to the line from the tee to the mandatory.
(3) In the case of a double mandatory when no line is marked, the mandatory line is the straight line connecting the two mandatories, and extends beyond them in both directions.

C.A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if it passes the correct side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line. Once the mandatory has been passed on the correct side, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.

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.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 02:20 AM
Again, your reading is "only" true if the word "only" is inserted in the text for B & C. It's not there, so disc position at rest is irrelevant except when the disc hasn't crossed the line yet on either side of the mando.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 02:32 AM
If you insert the word "only" as the fourth word in 803.11C then it would be "the only" way a mandatory can be completed. But without it, the statement is just one of potentially several ways it can be completed.

I think as-is, it's written as if the tenth word was "only", however it was redundant, and therefore omitted.

I do have trouble with part "B" there though. It's in the language of "passing". "Pass" and "past" get confused. Merely going past on the wrong side is not "passing", however this is the word used. Perhaps someone though "move beyond limit line, on the incorrect side" could be distilled. :confused:

sandalman
Jun 24 2005, 10:40 AM
the spirit of the mando clause is celar - you may not play through the forbidden side. to me that means it doesnt matter what throw it is or how your disc got to its lie. you cant play through that space! a couple ways to fix it could include a) simply stating that mandos are in play for every throw, and b) declaring that a disc whose lie is before the mando point has by definition not successfully negotiated the mando - regardless of the path it took to get to its lie.

lonhart
Jun 24 2005, 11:49 AM
Hi Chuck,

I understand where you are coming from, especially the point about "since only is not used, there must be other ways." However, I still disagree. I would argue that having "only" is not the only way to be explicit.

I think of it as an "if this, then that" kind of sentence. If it is considered "passed", then it did A, B, and C. If A, B, and C were not done, then it has not "passed."

And I still think this is a bad rule.

Would you agree that if your disc came to rest behind the mando line (closer to the tee than the hole), that you must play using the line of play to the mando when marking your lie rather than to the hole, irrespective of how our disc arrived to its current location?

Cheers,
Steve

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 12:57 PM
I think some of the ramifications of changing the mando rule to the current drop zone version were missed when the rule was written. Although the intent might be to always have to pass on the good side of the mando, not all mandos are safety related. Obviously there's an issue with marking and handling the cutback mandos so you don't have the ridiculous scenario where the player executes a curl shot around the mando but ends up in a way where the rule states he has to go around it again.

The If-then logic doesn't exclude other alternatives unless the "only" word is used as I demonstrated in my MN disc golfer example. Consider:

"If people play disc golf in MN, then they are called disc golfers." This obviously doesn't mean if you don't play disc golf in MN, you cannot be called a disc golfer. However, if it were phrased something like, "Only if you play disc golf in MN can you be called a disc golfer," that would exclude playing anywhere else and still be called a disc golfer.

The wording as currently written for the mando rule has this "loop hole" which may not have been intended to be a loop hole but the way it was intended to be played.

Dick
Jun 24 2005, 01:24 PM
"Once the mandatory has been passed on the correct side, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole."

that's easy to understand. now how is a mandatory passed?

"A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if it passes the correct side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and <font color="red"> comes to rest lying completely beyond that line </font> .

how hard is that? why would it need the word only. i think the rule is VERY clear how a mandatory is passed. just like ob, the position your disc ends up in is what matters. if you want to pass the mandatory, you must cross on the correct side AND land past the mandatory line(which is also defined in the rule). if all 3 conditions are not met it isn't considered a successfully negotiated mandatory. maybe they will change the rule, but i think they shouldn't. mandatories are often used to protect something and allowing throws from behind the line without negotiating the mandatory could be dangerous.

gnduke
Jun 24 2005, 01:27 PM
To be accurate in comparison, the Minnesota disc golfer statement should be.

A person is playing disc golf in Minnesota if they are a person, they are playing disc golf, and they are playing in Minnesota.

It is evident that all three conditions must be true for the first part to be true. Now to make it look right we'll make a new name for a person playing disc golf in Minnesota. Mindg is the new word. You don't know what it means until it is explained to you (just like successfully passing a mando).

Now the above sentence reads "A player is a mindg if they are a person, they are playing disc golf, and they are playing in Minnesota.

Dick
Jun 24 2005, 02:39 PM
true dat! :cool:

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 02:45 PM
Chuck is wrong, but don't expect him to admit it. :)

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 02:48 PM
A person may also be a mindg via another set of conditions because "only" isn't used.

BTW, I just talked with Dave Gentry who had a discussion with Chappy from the Rules Committee about the double mando that you sometimes see at the Memorial. Chappy said that passing the mando is all that's necessary. Where your disc ends up does not need to be considered.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 03:32 PM
With all due respect to Mr. Gentry, his definition does not fit the rule stipulation of part C:
"...comes to rest <font color="red">lying completely beyond that line. </font>

gnduke
Jun 24 2005, 03:38 PM
A person may also be a mindg via another set of conditions because "only" isn't used.

BTW, I just talked with Dave Gentry who had a discussion with Chappy from the Rules Committee about the double mando that you sometimes see at the Memorial. Chappy said that passing the mando is all that's necessary. Where your disc ends up does not need to be considered.



And I would have said the same thing a week ago if I was asked about it without a copy of the rules in front of me.
I would have been wrong according to the wording in the current rules.

neonnoodle
Jun 24 2005, 03:46 PM
The rule needs to be revised if passing through the plain is to supercede that the disc must come to rest beyond the line.

Certainly the result of the throw is easier to judge than the flight path, so I favor that the disc must come to rest beyond line.

Still, the benefit of the doubt to the thrower rule is in play, or should be if the rule is revised.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 03:57 PM
I think the 'making' part is complicated yet clear; it's what constitutes MISSING a mandy which could be made more definate, wording-wise.

THAT situation: Is where the disc lands a factor in the call? Can one travel the wrong side, end short, and be declared to have MISSED?!? Section "B" reads both ways.

MISSED: [i] A disc passing the incorrect side of the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty...

NOT MISSED: A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.


...offhand, I'd say that "and" has a lot of weight. Meaning, don't read that first sentence as the definition....it's incomplete; "missing" gets addressed later.

Interestingly, there are also 3 conditions for MISSING a mandy. :o

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 04:12 PM
If we are going to re-word the rule, we need to clarify how to play the following scenario also:

The disc passes the mando on the correct side going in the correct direction. (From tee to basket.) The disc then lands on edge and rolls around the mandy and crosses the missed mandy line from the opposite direction. (Heading in a direction from the basket towards the tee.) It curls a little more and comes to rest next to but complete behind the made-mandy line. What is the call?

Under the old "unwind" rules this was not an issue because the disc has clearly made the mandy.

Under the new drop zone rules it is not clear. Well, per the rules as exactly written right now, the disc has not passed the mandy and must still pass on the correct side. I think this is reasonable because, regardless of already having passed on the correct side of the mandy, you are still on the tee-pad side of the mandy and the mandy should still be in effect.

But the confusion arises because of the old "unwind" version of the rules which many people remember. They will start quoting "spirit of the rule" if there is a preferred flight path to the bad side of the mandy. The thing is, what is the "spirit of the rule" for this new rule? No one knows. The rule was changed so you can't use "spirit of the old rule before it was changed." It was changed for a reason.

Now imagine the exact opposite scenario: the disc misses the mandy but curls around and comes to rest behind the missed-mandy line. What to do here? Is the mandy missed or has the mandy not been negotiated yet? Per the rules as written, it is no penalty and the mandy is still in play.




Those who wish to use Chuck's interpretation will then also be forced, for consistencies sake, to use the corollary of it: if a disc passes on the bad side of the mandy, completely crosses the missed the mandy line, and then whacks something with sufficient force to bounce it back such that it comes to rest on the good side of the missed mandy line, then a penatly throw must be assesed for missing the mandy. Yes, you must assess a penalty for a shot that comes to rest completely in the "not made not missed" zone.

That will not go over too well.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 04:12 PM
Instead of:

803.11 B. A disc passing the incorrect side of the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.


Something like:

803.11 B. A missed mandatory results in the next throw being made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory, plus a one-throw penalty. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 04:36 PM
Now imagine the exact opposite scenario: the disc misses the mandy but curls around and comes to rest behind the missed-mandy line. What to do here? Is the mandy missed or has the mandy not been negotiated yet? Per the rules as written, it is no penalty and the mandy is still in play.


I agree with the call here. The trouble starts when someone wants to interpret: (B). "A disc passing the incorrect side..." out of context. I don't think this should be read as a rule itself, but rather as describing a situation WHEREIN the 3 conditions of failure were met. WHY the word "fail" was eshewed...speculative. :confused: NEED there be a GOOD reason?

Maxims: If the disc passes on the correct side, it is not automatically good. The third condition is where it ends, relative to the line.

...likewise, if the disc passes on the INcorrect side, it is not automatically a penalty>>>DZ.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 05:27 PM
The primary aspect of a mando is which side the disc first touches/crosses the line. The second aspect, where the disc lands, need only be specified in the rule to handle cases where the group could not see/determine whether the disc crossed the line on someone's throw. That's how the rule should be written. I'll take a shot at it.

It's similar to the foot fault and lost disc rules in that the group is responsible for watching another player's throw to be prepared to make a ruling on a called foot fault or where the disc was last seen.

sandalman
Jun 24 2005, 05:35 PM
so the first player throws his shot and it flies on the correct side of the mando, drops and catches an edge. it rolls around in a half circle, crosses back over the mando line and come to a rest 10 feet on the tee side of the line.

the second player gets scared and throws a worm burner that skids to a halt smack dab on top of the first disc.

someone please explain just how the third guy on the card is supposed to tell the second thrower that he must consider the mando on his next shot, but that its totally ok for the first thrower to disregard the mando and play whatever line he wishes.

this cant really be what some of you are suggesting, is it?

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 05:44 PM
That is exactly what Chuck is suggesting.

I kind of like the current wording taken as it is written. It's all about results of the throw. If your disc comes to rest on tee side of the made and missed mandy lines, there is no penalty and you still have to negotiate the mandy no matter how your disc got there.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 05:56 PM
This "primary aspect" sounds like something leftover from the 'unwrap' days...I don't see "primary" secondary" or "tertiary" aspects mentioned anywhere in the text about the three conditions. :eek:

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 06:16 PM
While it would be nice to use the results of the throw like OB, where the disc lies at the end is insufficient except as a backup if no one saw the throw. It still doesn't handle a throw on a cutback mando where the mando line is crossed properly, the disc curls around and it ends up on the tee side back across the bad side of the mando line. The whole time the disc was traveling in the actual direction of the fairway heading back to the pin.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 06:28 PM
Rule 803.08 E supports my position on crossing the mando line taking precedence over where the disc lands. It's confirmed in the Rules Q&A on Missing a Mando and going OB (which I submitted). Let's say the pond stopped short of the mando line in that diagram. A player throws across the bad side of the line and is deflected back into the pond. I think most players would prefer to take the missed mando call and proceed to the drop zone versus playing from the edge of the pond and pitching over sideways to the fairway before proceeding to throw past the mando correctly. Actually, if forced to accept the OB, I would probably choose to rethrow from my original lie.

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 06:31 PM
The "U-turn Mandy", which sounds cool but is hardly common, is a special case and could easily be handled by a special condition.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 06:32 PM
Perhaps I don't get the 'cutback' imagery, but it seems the rule does cover this, it's just the ramifications which seem tough>>>implausible.

...in fact, if the line on a "cutback" is hard to judge from the tee, more reason for going up and having a close look at the line's 'geometry' to make the decision...emphasis given to finally resting point, a la OB calls.

I don't see how the "Golden Passage" clause holds up to the current, written stipulations.

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 06:40 PM
Rule 803.08 E supports my position on crossing the mando line taking precedence over where the disc lands.



No it doesn't. The landed disc is determined to have missed the mandy. That section simply says that the shot shall not be penalized again for being OB or over 2 meters.

Chuck, the difference in opinion here is that you think that anytime the rule book says "missed the mandy" it means that the flight of the disc only, and the rest of us don't consider the disc to have made or missed the mandy until the three conditions spelled out in the rulebook for making or missing have been met.

803.08E and the Rules Q&A say nothing to shed light on this disagreement.

slo
Jun 24 2005, 06:41 PM
OK, now that I found Chuck's Missed Mandy, Then OB Q&A (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) trumpcard, I need a timeout. :DDisc Golf, anyone? :cool:

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 06:43 PM
It's not a trump card, it's a red herring. :)

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 07:11 PM
The word "precedence" is used all over that Q&A. So far, I have the Q&A on my side for missing a mando and the Co-Chairs of the Competition Committee plus RC member on my side for passing the correct side.

Let's try another logic grid. The problem with the current rule is it doesn't lock down all possible outcomes. If it said, here's how you correctly pass the mando and all other scenarios mean it's missed, you would have something. Or vice versa, if it said you miss it if this happens and all other scenarios mean it's been passed, you would have something. But they made the mistake of specifying one set of conditons that means missed and one set that means passed but not providing more explicit advice on other sets of conditions, several which we have discussed.

Here's the logic grid. In the event, the mando is passed in the correct direction on either side more than once due to a funky bounce and roll, I'm proposing the first passing takes precedence. The two options with the ?? are not explicitly called out in the rule but are also not excluded. The other line in the paragraph provides the guidance for the call indicated.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Flight path</td><td>Disc</td><td>Outcome</td><td>Rule
</td></tr><tr><td>Passed correctly</td><td>Past line</td><td>Made</td><td>803.11 C (line 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>Passed correctly</td><td>Short of line</td><td>?? Made</td><td>803.11 C (line 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>Passed incorrectly</td><td>Past line</td><td>Missed</td><td>803.11 B (line 2)
</td></tr><tr><td>Passed incorrectly</td><td>Short of line</td><td>?? Missed</td><td>803.11 C (line 1)
</td></tr><tr><td>Not passed</td><td>Short of line</td><td>Not missed</td><td>No rule
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

rhett
Jun 24 2005, 07:30 PM
Chuck, the goal of the rules should to provide a level playing field such that the same shot with the same lie in two different groups is scored the same.

Using that as guidance, we can only go by the rules as written. Past history, inferences based on old versions of rules, and other non-common knowledge prevent the primary goal from being attainable. "Spirit of the rule" and esoteric "that's not what the rule writer meant" also prevent fairness in use of the rules.

So......the rule as written uses the final stopping point of the disc for determining compliance. There are only three possibilities for the throw:

1 made the mandy
2 missed the mandy
3 has not yet negotiated the mandy

If we assume the the rule as written by the Rules Commitee, Approved the PDGA BOD, and printed and distributed to the members is correct, then it is simple to determine which of the 3 possibilites apply to the thrown disc.

If, on the other hand, we assume the RC wrote the rule wrong and the BOD approved that erroneous rule, then we have the multiple cases you quote whereby the status of the throw is in limbo. If we do this, we can be assured that different groups will score identical throws differently.

It is far simpler for us to accept the rule as written. It isn't unclear at all, unless you try to read things into that aren't there.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 07:46 PM
It is far simpler for us to accept the rule as written. It isn't unclear at all, unless you try to read things into that aren't there.



'Tis you who is doing so. My grid is explicit in laying out the options and the rule references.

You have to accept the fact that determining mando status requires observation of the flight path. Unlike OB where your group can close its eyes during the disc's flight and still determine whether a shot is OB or not by looking at the lie, you cannot do the same with a mando. If the group closes its eyes and just looks where the disc lands, it cannot tell whether the disc passed the mando on the good side, bad side, or at all if it's short of the line.

On the other hand, the group can watch the flight of the disc and determine whether the it passes or misses the mando or doesn't even get there, and make this determination without actually seeing where the disc ends up on the ground.

Plankeye
Jun 24 2005, 08:56 PM
Ok ok ok....enough about mandos

nothing to see here...

Two that I heard of recently:

1) You have to use a mini to mark your disc always.
2) You have to sign the scorecard before it is turned in.

Even though I think both of these were rules at one time.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 09:00 PM
Correct, it_doesn't_matter...

hitec100
Jun 24 2005, 09:25 PM
The word "precedence" is used all over that Q&A. So far, I have the Q&A on my side for missing a mando and the Co-Chairs of the Competition Committee plus RC member on my side for passing the correct side.


I don't get what you mean by "your side". Using your Q&A example, what do you think "our side" is? It seems from a direct reading of the rule that "our side" would also get you the same answer in the Q&A. Because the Q&A never meets all 3 conditions, the mando isn't passed.

How does the Q&A support your contention that you can pass the mando without having to meet all 3 conditions in 803.11c? It seems you've switched horses in mid-race, Chuck.

ck34
Jun 24 2005, 09:30 PM
The rule (my side) supports crossing the mando line in mid-flight without the disc ending up across the line to make a determination that the disc either missed or made the mando (see grid above). The other sides' interpretation is that the mando has not been made or missed if the disc ends up short of the line no matter what route it took to get there.

hitec100
Jun 24 2005, 10:22 PM
The other sides' interpretation is that the mando has not been made or missed if the disc ends up short of the line no matter what route it took to get there.


Well, that's not my side, nor the side of others that I've read.

My side is that the rule said 3 things must happen to pass the mando. One of those involves the route it took to get there. You seem to think the rule doesn't say that, but it should. I'm saying the rule does that, and there's no inferring 'bout it. But we're both in agreement that the Q&A has the correct result, no matter what either of us think of the wording of the rule.

slo
Jun 25 2005, 01:54 AM
...you're not only misquoting Chuck but yourself!

Summary of Camps' positions:
Others': Follow 3 rules.
Chucks': Golden Passage myth.

slo
Jun 25 2005, 02:17 AM
1) You have to use a mini to mark your disc always.
<font color="blue">You always have to use it sometimes. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font>
2) You have to sign the scorecard before it is turned in. Even though I think both of these were rules at one time. <font color="blue">
You're responsible for what's there, signed or not. :eek:</font>

paul
Jun 25 2005, 09:59 AM
The "mini" thing is kind of silly. It's odd that the thought being the mini mark is different than marking the thrown disc with any other disc or round thing you have. As long as you're in the line of play the size of the diameter isn't of consequence. If the objective of the rule is to make the group's view of your foot placement easier to see we should be marking the disc with something bright and narrow that points to the lie and the basket allowing someone observing a chance to see a wayward foot plant easier . . . ? Or, I would think that a little engineer's flag with a weighted bottom would be the best for this -- you could check the line of the plant easier and it would tell everyone immediately when the player went past his lie. I would suggest that sticking in the ground would be good, but there's plenty of places that my discs end up that I could never get one of those suckers in the ground.

Ball golf's marker is to get your ball out of harm's way. I guess there's that one in a million scenario that a disc versus a mini could cause a change in the location of another's disc . . .. but it never seems to be the reason we mark a disc.

I know -- it's way off the norm so it's of course silly. If I had my druthers I'd just add "any pdga approved disc" to the list of markers in addition to the mini.

gnduke
Jun 25 2005, 03:46 PM
I think all of the confusion can be cleared up by changing two parts of the rule. The confusion comes in by the rule attempting to define passing/missing the mando in 2 places instead of clearly defining it in one place and then refering to that definition everywhere else it is needed.

There should be only one clear definition of passing/missing a mando, and all other references should be to passed/missed mandatories. This would force consistent applications of the rule. That is afterall what makes a rule fair. If a rule cannot be easily applied consistently, it is unfair regardless of what it is regulating.

If the wording in 803.11 B & C were changed to read (which is the only to read it now without introducing an ambiguity) "missing" instead of "passing the incorrect side of" and "successfully" instead of "on the correct side". This would read much cleaner and remove ambiguities. Of course Chuck would argue that it changes the nature of the rule by removing those specific ambiguities.

<hr>
I.E.
B. A disc <s>passing the incorrect side of</s> missing the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.

C.A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if it passes the correct side of the mandatory, crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line. Once the mandatory has been passed <s>on the correct side</s> successfully, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.
<hr>

This is cleaner because it does not attempt to define missing/passing the mando in 2 places, but relies on the definitions already given as to what constitutes passing/missing a mando.

hitec100
Jun 25 2005, 04:17 PM
...you're not only misquoting Chuck but yourself!

Summary of Camps' positions:
Others': Follow 3 rules.
Chucks': Golden Passage myth.


Explain. I quoted Chuck verbatim. And my summary is your summary, except I don't see how Chuck "golden passage" has anything to do with his first post on this point. He at first said it didn't require all 3 conditions to pass the mando. The rule says you do need to meet all 3 conditions. But what does that have to do with the "golden passage" thing? And how am I misquoting?

lonhart
Jun 25 2005, 07:35 PM
Hi gnduke,

Here's what I'd write if I were king...

803.11 MANDATORIES
A. A mandatory restricts the path the disc may take to the target. A disc must pass to the correct side(s) of the mandatory(ies) before the hole is completed.

B. A disc missing the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if (1) it travels on the incorrect side(s) of the mandatory(ies), (2) crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and (3) comes to rest lying completely beyond the mandatory line.
(1) The mandatory line is the line marked by the director or course designer to indicate when a disc has passed the mandatory.
(2) If no line is marked, the mandatory line is defined as a straight line through the mandatory, perpendicular to the line from the tee to the mandatory, and extends beyond the mandatory in both directions.
(3) In the case of a double mandatory when no line is marked, the mandatory line is the straight line connecting the two mandatories, and extends beyond them in both directions.

C.A throw is considered to have passed the mandatory if (1) it travels on the correct side of the mandatory, (2) crosses the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and (3) comes to rest lying completely beyond the mandatory line. Once a throw is considered to have passed the mandatory, the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.

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.

Dick
Jun 26 2005, 01:41 AM
chuck, you may have your grid on your side and a RC member/s , but unfortunately not the actual rules or the q&a. maybe you interpret some definition of a made mando out of that, but i just read the whole q&a and saw nothing about defining a made mando. i did however note that they specifically note that mandos are sometimes neccessary for safety. if a throw passes the correct side of the mando and then curls back behind it, are you suggesting the player should then be allowed to throw on the incorrect side of the mando, thus possibly endangering whatever the mando is protecting? what if it is a kiddy playground? should he be able to whip out a firebird and let it rip right over it? this is insane, and you can expect only throws landing beyond the mando line( and meeting ALL the other defined conditions as stated in the rules) as correctly made at any event i run....safety should be a priority.

p.s.i would have to strongly disagree with any changing of the rule or it's intent. if you are behind the mando, no matter how you got there, all throws should ALWAYS have to pass on the correct side. why don't you tell us why it doesn't make sense to protect the kiddy playgound?

slo
Jun 26 2005, 05:30 AM
I sent you a PM; respectfully. :cool:

...well, I heard the "spectaor moved the disc" convolution today. He even played a provisional; it meant two throws!!

His group got it correct. What he didn't get at first was the "intent" part, because his reasoning was the 'civilian' was a "blind target" on the hole. He thought intent refered to the thrower! I reasured him there was no punity for an accidental collision, and showed him the general area of the "at rest" rule, and he found the specific line/paragraph, so it all worked out. ;)

lonhart
Jun 26 2005, 01:40 PM
For myth #2, 804.03 D says:

"D. At the end of the round, each player shall sign his or her scorecard indicating that he or she attests to the accuracy of the score on each hole and the total score. If all the players of the group agree that a hole score was recorded in error, the score may be changed prior to the scorecard being turned in. Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores reported."

Hence, signing your card is not a myth. It is a necessity.
Cheers,
Steve

tbender
Jun 26 2005, 05:27 PM
For myth #2, 804.03 D says:

"D. At the end of the round, each player shall sign his or her scorecard indicating that he or she attests to the accuracy of the score on each hole and the total score. If all the players of the group agree that a hole score was recorded in error, the score may be changed prior to the scorecard being turned in. Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores reported."

Hence, signing your card is not a myth. It is a necessity.
Cheers,
Steve



I'm responsible if I sign. And I'm responsible if I don't sign. So it's not a necessity either.

slo
Jun 26 2005, 06:54 PM
I'm not sure why you're barking up that tree, but I know a Traveling Pro who is kinda 'proud' about never HAVING to have signed his card in a Supertour event. If you can get away with it, no 'extra' consequences, it's not necessary. ;) Maybe in a towel-in-the-rain kinda way, but not in a collar-in-a-Supertour kinda way. Grok me? :cool:

lonhart
Jun 27 2005, 02:22 AM
Hi TBender,

I read "shall" as must in this case, but that's just my interpretation. Others may view shall as "should." I think it was pointed out in another thread that "shall" and "must" should be switched to make it super clear.

Cheers!
Steve

sandalman
Jun 27 2005, 10:47 AM
should be switched, or must be switched???

lonhart
Jun 27 2005, 12:30 PM
shall be switched :)

rhett
Jun 27 2005, 03:08 PM
You must total your scorecard.

You don't have to sign your scorecard.

If you don't total your scorecard, you get a 2 throw penalty added to the total.

If you don't sign your scorecard absolutely nothing happens and your same score stands.


Therefore, it is not necessary nor required to sign your scorecard.

neonnoodle
Jun 27 2005, 05:31 PM
You must total your scorecard.

You don't have to sign your scorecard.

If you don't total your scorecard, you get a 2 throw penalty added to the total.

If you don't sign your scorecard absolutely nothing happens and your same score stands.


Therefore, it is not necessary nor required to sign your scorecard.



Nor is it to total it! (if you don't mind an additional 2 throws added... :D)

slo
Jun 27 2005, 06:01 PM
It would appear a 'zen' score for a single round would total 128. That's not making a single mark on the card*, so 7 x 18=126; 126+2=128. :p

...by some odd quirk of Humans' facination with "base ten" numerals, immutably influenced by the time it takes to finish a Fifth of Scotch whiskey, 128 "<font size=4>=</font>"1+2+8 "<font size=4>=</font>" Eleven in Numerology.

# Eleven is the Ubermench # [or "Superperson" in English]; therefore Golfers whom only care to be in the moment and play, not record the game, are Superpersons. :)

*<font size=-4>only the person atop the card can accomplish this feat...super!</font>

gnduke
Jun 27 2005, 06:33 PM
Well, it could be 129-135 if the person keeping the cards were given a courtesy warning and subsequent courtesy violation(s) for failing to keep score properly. :cool:

rhett
Jun 27 2005, 07:07 PM
Not to mention that any par 4 or par 5 holes would add to the total.

slo
Jun 27 2005, 07:27 PM
Every hole is par 3. ;)

lonhart
Jun 29 2005, 02:42 AM
Hi Rhett,

I understand there is no penalty for not signing your card. I wonder why the current wording is in the rules? If signatures are not needed, shouldn't that language get dropped from the rules to simplify them?

And if that is the case, then would you agree that players need not watch each other tee off? I think that is a "shall" in the rules. And no penalty is specified for not watching someone else tee off (unless you make a stretch and call a courtesy violation).

Thanks!
Steve