johnrock
Aug 21 2008, 02:54 PM
If a player goes OB (and never returns to the field of play)before reaching and passing a Mando, should they be allowed to play from the Mando Drop Zone or should they have to play from where they went OB and still have to try to make the Mando on their next shot?

I know my answer, but I would like to hear other opinions.

Mark_Stephens
Aug 21 2008, 02:57 PM
Well, until a disc completely comes to rest it is not considered OB. It cannot be moving through the air & be OB.

803.09

A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area.

johnrock
Aug 21 2008, 03:03 PM
I guess I should have explicitly stated that the disc came to rest OB. :p

krupicka
Aug 21 2008, 03:04 PM
The Q&A has nice pictures and explanation for this one.

discette
Aug 21 2008, 03:07 PM
They get to play from the mando drop zone.

There is a rules Q & A on this very question: Missed the mandatory, went OB.


Rules Q & A (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)

johnrock
Aug 21 2008, 03:09 PM
Good call!

I didn't see that.

Thanks!

KMcKinney
Aug 21 2008, 03:12 PM
Since you can either throw from where the disc went out OR from previous lie, why not rethrow from where you are at? I don't think a mando drop zone would be appropriate to use for an OB unless specified by the TD.

jmc2442
Aug 21 2008, 03:16 PM
yet ANOTHER reason why the rules Q&A MUST be included in some type of rule/competition book supplied to PDGA members. how are we supposed to reference these "rulings" in the middle of a tournament?

in my eyes the rulebook is the worst thing the PDGA has going right now....

JerryChesterson
Aug 21 2008, 03:34 PM
They get to play from the mando drop zone.

There is a rules Q & A on this very question: Missed the mandatory, went OB.


Rules Q & A (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)



I think you missed interpretted his question. He didn't miss the mando then go OB. He went OB and never made the mando. Play it from where it went OB.

cgkdisc
Aug 21 2008, 03:35 PM
The Q&A is unnecessary to make the correct ruling. The mando rule 803.12B indicates two conditions for the disc to have missed the mando. One occurs during flight and the other after the disc has landed. The OB rule only has the condition that the disc be OB when it stops. Since the mando line is missed first, it takes precedence on making the call a missed mando versus OB. The Q&A just explains it a little better. If the disc had crossed the missed mando line and come back to the non-missed side but remained OB, then the OB rule would be used.

For those who might not have seen the priority scheme before, the order of rules application for shots involving penalties pertaining to the flight or lie upon stopping would be:
Mando
OB
2 meter (if applicable)
Lost
Unplayable

bazkitcase5
Aug 21 2008, 03:43 PM
if the disc crossed the imaginary mando line on the wrong side, then they go to the mando drop zone - it does not matter where the disc came to rest (as mentioned, OB isn't determined until the disc comes to rest)

if the disc never made it to the mando line, then the mando has not come into play yet and it is played based on where it landed - if this is OB, then it is played where it was last in bounds

cgkdisc
Aug 21 2008, 03:54 PM
The inconsistent part of the mando rule is that once the mando line is crossed on the good side during the disc flight, the mando has been made regardless where it ends up. Since the mando line is usually a ways from the tee, it can make it harder to call versus looking where a disc lands as with the rule for crossing the missed mando line. I understand that the conditions for making and missing the mando have both been written for the benefit of the player, but the differences make it harder to negotiate the rules minefield when other rules might also be applicable to a situation.

MCOP
Aug 21 2008, 04:34 PM
Heres a good one to add:

Disc is thrown: Goes past the Mando, but after searching is declared LOST.

Lost Disc from the tee pad results in a retee. What happens to the mando then?

cgkdisc
Aug 21 2008, 05:23 PM
You have made the mando and can throw over the area that the mando was trying to prevent you from throwing over. It's one of the flaws of this rules interaction but I suspect happens very infrequently.

crgadyk
Aug 22 2008, 05:50 PM
Really? That same situation cost me 4 strokes during the last round of Worlds. I think thats where Mcop got the situation from.

At Meyer Broadway on hole 5 (the one with the mando in the middle of the fairway) during my round 7. It was my first hole BTW.

I made the mando on the tee shot but we couldn't find the disc in the 5' tall rough on the left side of the fairway. I go retee and miss the mando on the retee. I assumed it counted as an OB stroke so I went to the drop zone shooting 5. Ended up taking a 7 on my first hole of the last round.

That sucks, I was in 66th place starting that round and could have made the cut if I would have known that. Since I took a 7 on the hole I decided to goof off the rest of the round.

cgkdisc
Aug 22 2008, 05:56 PM
Did a marshal or official tell you that you had to make the mando on the rethrow or was that the assumption of the group? It helps to have the rulebook there and know or check the rules.

gnduke
Aug 22 2008, 06:06 PM
I would agree that the mando was made and irrelevant for all subsequent throws, but would argue that a re-throw is not a subsequent throw.

veganray
Aug 22 2008, 06:14 PM
???????????????? :confused:
subsequent (adj.): coming after something in time; following

How could it possibly not be subsequent?

crgadyk
Aug 22 2008, 06:15 PM
It was the groups decision... I asked if I made the mando and they told me that it went left of it and that I needed to go to the drop zone.

It was my lack of knowing the rule for that situation so noone to blame but myself. I assumed (incorrectly) that the mando was in play for any shot that was short of it even if it was crossed in a throw previous.

I didn't even think that it could be a one time only mando. Live and learn I guess :)

gnduke
Aug 23 2008, 01:04 AM
???????????????? :confused:
subsequent (adj.): coming after something in time; following

How could it possibly not be subsequent?



Lost disc rule would be subsequent, thinking about the interference thread where it is the same shot.

The rules do not address this aspect of a re-throw and after further review, the combination of a made mando and lost disc satisfy the rules regarding the passing of the mandatory and remove it from play for the re-tee.

I don't think this is the proper way the situation should be handled, but that is the ruling the rules support.

I would still argue that a re-throw of a shot is a new version of the same shot and should face the same restrictions as the original.

johnbiscoe
Aug 23 2008, 09:46 AM
wonder what the intent was of not having a mando be a mando on ALL shots from behind it- from a design perspective that seems much more intuitive. what is the intent of a mando if not to uniformly prevent throws from taking a certain route whether for safety or challenge?

cgkdisc
Aug 23 2008, 10:02 AM
I would agree that if mandos are preventing throws along certain routes, then it doesn't make sense to allow those routes under some loophole circumstances. One of the reasons for changing to drop zones for mandos was to keep people from playing more shots by unwinding from the area "protected" by the mando.

crgadyk
Aug 25 2008, 01:50 PM
I would still argue that a re-throw of a shot is a new version of the same shot and should face the same restrictions as the original.



This is what I was thinking when I reteed and missed the mando which is why I assumed it was a stroke plus move to the drop zone. Had I known the rules (whether its right or wrong) I would have just missed the mando on purpose to give me a much better look at picking up the circle 4.