This may be hard to describe without a picture, but I'll try. On this particular hole, it is mandatory to go between two trees that are staggered. The first tree is on the left, and the second tree is on the right about 50 ft. later. If you miss the mando, you have to unwrap and go back around the tree (no drop zone).

Based on my knowledge, since the trees aren't parallel to each other, that it is in fact, two single mando's - the left tree has a plane extending left, and the right tree has a plane extending right. Based on that assumption (which may be incorrect), my throw went right of the mando, and I had to wrap back around it.

The question is: how do you mark that lie? 803.03 states, "This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play, touching the thrown disc."

My throw was up by the basket but since I had to throw back around the mandatory tree, do I mark it facing the basket? or facing the tree, since that's the path my disc has to go. If I do mark it towards the basket, do i have to throw sideways? I hope this kind of made sense.

As a side note, on my return throw, I hit the mandatory tree and fell just on the wrong side of it, so it was even more ambiguous in that situation.

First of all you need to not play it following the 2002 rule book.

The 2006 rule book requires a drop zone.

Either way - just so you know how the old rule worked - the mando tree missed became the next target with the old rules and you had to mark your disc as if playing to that tree as the target.

Welcome to 2009!

Sorry for the smart alecky answer, but that meant that no one you were playing with or you asked had any knowledge of the new rules which is sad.

Keith

Keith is right about the drop zone and the rule book and the marking.
But just to confuse things, (It's a talent.) The course can still require you to unwind if that is the course rule.
And are you certain the mando is two single mandos?
Single mando miss line is perpendicular to line of play.
Double mando miss lines might extend opposite each other.
So missing the first mando is easier to do and missing the farther mando might not happen if you land wide enough away from the mando.

Isn't that fun?

Bob

Bob:

So you're saying that instead of two single mandos, that it's a diagonal line between the two trees, rather than two singles off to the sides?

First time I played it I asked the guys where the drop zone was and they said that there wasn't one and you had to come back through. We have state championship there this weekend so I'll be sure to make a point to the TD about it.

Thanks guys!

Rule 803.12 A

(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.

and

Rule 803.12

C. A disc that has missed the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. 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.

Two mandos don't necessarily have to be considered a double mando. They can each be separate mandos if marked independently.

If a player passes a tree or post on the "wrong" side and they are required by the TD to unwind like the old mando rule, then this is a special condition rule not a mando option being invoked. This local course rule would have to be approved by the PDGA Tour Director to be allowed in a sanctioned event.

Yeah we can make up rules if we want and make it MORE confusing, but wouldn't it be better if we could get 90% of the players to at least be playing from the SAME rulebook with the same hard to understand sometimes rules, than the mishmash bull where everyone guesses like we do now?

C'mon Chuck, You of all people should NOT be encouraging people to play from rules from 7 years ago, as it just means that many more idiotic questions at ratings time - like this scenario - My Event was an X-CTier because Chuck said we could play by the 2002 Mando rule, but only 7 people played it that way and then only 3 of them were rated, so now nobody has ratings from my Event - Can you please look at the results and tell me what everyones ratings would be if we had played using the 2006 rulebook instead as Keith had suggested. :)

I can see it now.
It's bad enough at National Tours and Majors and Worlds that they use "local Rules", and even when they don't players try to find a way to create local rules, so depending whose card you are on depends on how the rules get used/followed.
And I'm always the Rules Bad Guy when I break out the rulebook to show people at Worlds in Kansas City that they are inventing rules or playing by 2002 rules SEVEN FREAKING YEARS LATER.

How about we STRENGTHEN the rules we already have and ENFORCE them, instead of everyone playing by their own rules like we have now.

Thanks Chuck - you are the greatest for suggesting this :(

Keith, I didn't advocate for or against the unwind procedure, just provided the facts on the options. You'd have to dig way back in the Discussion archives, maybe even rec.sport.disc, where I discussed how unwinding made no sense as a rule if the reason the mando was there in the first place was for safety. Why would you want players standing in the potentially unsafe missed mando area and making another throw to get back out?

I know you are presenting facts, but lets move FORWARD, not backwards in trying to get everyone on the same page, instead of giving them options to use rules from a decade ago which will just confuse all the newer players who play more Events, than just the neanderthal Event mentioned.

Because that will keep the actual scenarios I dealt with at Worlds this year from manifesting themselves in future years by you lending them credence as doable options. :(

sings> you're liv-ing....in the pa-a-a-a-ast... /fortunately stops singing>

options are options, no matter what. If full discussion is what is needed, then all possibilities need to be presented.

This discussion started with a situation which was questionable even according to the OLD rules. The question was ABOUT the old rules, actually. The question has been answered, and the questioner has been informed of the proper situation.

Because that will keep the actual scenarios I dealt with at Worlds this year from manifesting themselves in future years by you lending them credence as doable options. :(

Which course did you have a problem with "local rules"?

I notified the TD about it so hopefully we won't have any problems this weekend.

Thanks again guys!

Rule 803.12 A

(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.

I think this covers the scenario presented. Case closed. Had the two mandys been marked with their own individual mandy lines, then it would be a different story. With no marked lines this rule comes into effect, regardless of intentions.

Which course did you have a problem with "local rules"?
Local rules weren't really much of an issue at KC Worlds - (discounting the changing rules in the final 9 depending on divisions which is probably NOT a "local rules" issue) - it was at a past Worlds west of your location.
Having players trying to play by 2002 rule book rules was a problem TWICE in KC Worlds among other Rule book issues from the 2006 rule book which were already documented on my nightly KC worlds posts I made while there in the Worlds thread.