DOC65
Jan 26 2010, 02:01 PM
It seems I've seen this question brought up before but I not successful at finding it. So here it is again for the sake of the new folks. :D

Hole has OB left with a Mando about 10' inside the OB lines. Bubba throw his tee shot OB 30' or heck even 5' short of the Mando and misses the Mando. What does he do?

I say go to the Mando drop and play from there. Since there is a Mando on the hole and he missed it the OB doesn't even come into play until your past the Mando.

So what do you rules experts say?

krupicka
Jan 26 2010, 02:12 PM
It sounds like from your description, that the disc has not yet reached the mando line. In that case, the mando is not yet missed/made the disc would be OB. If the disc has passed the mando line, then the mando takes precedent.

This is covered in the FAQ:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/299#299n840

johnbiscoe
Jan 26 2010, 02:49 PM
It seems I've seen this question brought up before but I not successful at finding it. So here it is again for the sake of the new folks. :D

Hole has OB left with a Mando about 10' inside the OB lines. Bubba throw his tee shot OB 30' or heck even 5' short of the Mando and misses the Mando. What does he do?

I say go to the Mando drop and play from there. Since there is a Mando on the hole and he missed it the OB doesn't even come into play until your past the Mando.

So what do you rules experts say?

how can the mando come into play if he is short of it? OB as stated above.

discette
Jan 26 2010, 02:53 PM
If the OB disc has passed the mandatory, follow TD directions for missing mando. New lie is generally from the mandatory drop zone, unless TD has specified a re-tee.

If the OB disc is short of the mandatory, player can mark lie where disc was last in bounds or from previous lie.

DOC65
Jan 26 2010, 03:05 PM
It sounds like from your description, that the disc has not yet reached the mando line. In that case, the mando is not yet missed/made the disc would be OB. If the disc has passed the mando line, then the mando takes precedent.

This is covered in the FAQ:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/299#299n840

Thanks that's what I was looking for.

So the key is where the disc comes to rest regardless of where it went OB. Based on the illustration in the above line as long as the disc is past the mandatory then it doesn't matter where it went OB the Mandatory drop is in effect.

Or Ditto what discette said. :-)

exczar
Jan 26 2010, 03:07 PM
" Since there is a Mando on the hole and he missed it the OB doesn't even come into play until your past the Mando."


Another "non-rule" Rule. OB definitely comes into play for the entire hole, not just the portion after the mando.

If you go OB short of the mando, the mando has not yet been missed, and the next shot is played according to the rules regarding an OB shot.

discette
Jan 26 2010, 03:56 PM
"

If you go OB short of the mando, the mando has not yet been missed, and the next shot is played according to the rules regarding an OB shot.

Czar -

Your last sentence needs a few more words, or it can be misinterpreted.

It should read:

If you go OB short of the mando - and your OB disc does NOT land past the mando - the mando has not yet been missed, and the next shot is played according to the rules regarding an OB shot.


However....

If you go OB short of the mando - and your OB disc ends up PAST the mando - you HAVE missed the mando and your next shot is played according to the mando rules.

exczar
Jan 26 2010, 07:00 PM
Discette,

Yes, thank you, I had forgotten that, due to a Q&A ruling, in the special case of mandatories, it matters where a disc has landed OB, not just that it landed OB, even if it was last IB before it reached the mandatory.

I haven't been too fond of that ruling since Rule 803.09 clearly states, "A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw", and we are not assessing a penalty throw under this rule for a disc that is OB. Instead, because of the way the mandatory line is defined, it apparently goes through OB, so the final resting spot of the disc is important, and the OB status of the disc is irrelevent if it has crossed the mandatory line on the incorrect side of the mandatory itself, even if the disc crossed from IB to OB for the final time before the disc crossed the mandatory line.

I had preferred to think of OB as you are OB if the disc comes to rest in an OB area (straight forward and succinct), but it really is, you are OB if the disc comes to rest in an OB area, unless the disc crossed a mandatory line in the proper direction (from the tee) but not on the correct side of the mandatory.

bruce_brakel
Jan 27 2010, 02:28 AM
The answer does not hinge on a Q&A ruling, fortunately. For a disc that is both out of bounds and past the mando line on the wrong side of the mando, the rules tell you which way to play it:

E. A throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.12). It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters.

reallybadputter
Jan 30 2010, 11:32 AM
Well the rules are designed to prevent the stacking of penalties, and you need some decision. Otherwise, if a hole has 3 consecutive mandos and OB, you could pick up 4 penalty strokes with one throw. The idea that the mando takes precedence if fine... since the disc missed the mando before it was actually OB (by coming to rest).

What is interesting to think about though is a foot fault on a missed mando... according to E, you penalize the missed mando...

cgkdisc
Jan 30 2010, 01:38 PM
What is interesting to think about though is a foot fault on a missed mando... according to E, you penalize the missed mando...
If a foot fault is called and seconded, then the player's "throw" is not considered a "throw" regardless where it goes so only the foot fault rule is followed.

reallybadputter
Jan 30 2010, 03:08 PM
If a foot fault is called and seconded, then the player's "throw" is not considered a "throw" regardless where it goes so only the foot fault rule is followed.

Chuck-

Despite your certainty, that isn't what the rules actually say. There is a conflict in the rules, so please do not state that the throw is not a throw.

the rule says:
G. Any throw that involves a validly called
and seconded stance violation may not
be used by the thrower. Re-throws must
be taken from the original lie, prior to
subsequent play by others in the group.

It is still considered a throw. The rule says it may not be used by the thrower, but nowhere does it say that it is not a throw. You are inserting words to try and get out of the conflict with this rule:

And in Mandatories it say:
E. A throw that misses a mandatory shall
be penalized and the lie marked according
to the mandatory rule (803.12). It will
not be further penalized for any other
reason, such as out-of-bounds or above
two meters.

Explain to me how a throw, that in G above is called "any throw" that can't be used is not a throw. G calls it "Any throw" so it must still be a throw, right?

Obviously, if you haven't foot faulted yet in a round, G being dominant is to your benefit. If you've already been called once (or more) then E being dominant helps the thrower.

These two rules conflict. They should be clarified... The rules could include a list of violations in order that they take precedence over one another as a simple clarification... but it isn't there.

Destruction of Course > Stance > Mando > OB > Lost Disc > 2m or something like that

cgkdisc
Jan 30 2010, 04:54 PM
The rulings are applied in sequence based on when they happen for the same reason the mando rule is applied before a disc subsequently lands OB. The Foot Fault call occurs before the potentially legal "throw" has passed the wrong side of the mando. Once the Foot Fault is officially called and seconded - whether as a warning or penalty - then that throw passing the mando does not "exist" as a throw any more. Otherwise, you would have similarly nonsensical rules conflicts such as the foot fault "throw" going in the basket for an ace or landing OB. Those rules also indicate a "throw" landing there follow that rule but don't state the redundant "legal throw" just "throw" with the legality implied.

reallybadputter
Jan 30 2010, 05:06 PM
The rulings are applied in sequence based on when they happen for the same reason the mando rule is applied before a disc subsequently lands OB. The Foot Fault call occurs before the potentially legal "throw" has passed the wrong side of the mando. Once the Foot Fault is officially called and seconded - whether as a warning or penalty - then that throw passing the mando does not "exist" as a throw any more. Otherwise, you would have similarly nonsensical rules conflicts such as the foot fault "throw" going in the basket for an ace or landing OB. Those rules also indicate a "throw" landing there follow that rule but don't state the redundant "legal throw" just "throw" with the legality implied.

I didn't know that aces were in the rule book...

But I understand your logic, but none of those other rules say that effectively no other rule supersedes this rule... both of these rules do.

Also, if you read the rules literally, if an official calls a foot fault on me, I can use the foot-faulted throw:

G. Any throw that involves a validly called
and seconded stance violation may not
be used by the thrower. Re-throws must
be taken from the original lie, prior to
subsequent play by others in the group.

If an official calls a foot fault it is properly called, but is not seconded. Only if a member of the group calls the foot fault is a seconding required...:eek::eek::eek:

Is Phil Mickelson cheating?

wsfaplau
Jan 30 2010, 08:45 PM
No he is not cheating but it is unseemly. I guess he is violating the spirit and intent of the rule but not the letter of the rule.

Same as using the throw after an official called a non-seconded footfall. It violates the spirit and intent of the rule but not the letter of the rule.

But I believe you are correct, however it is also likely when the group appeals to the TD you will be more harshly penalized under a TD ruling. The TD could also be correct for making his call.

reallybadputter
Jan 30 2010, 10:27 PM
But I believe you are correct, however it is also likely when the group appeals to the TD you will be more harshly penalized under a TD ruling. The TD could also be correct for making his call.

How would I be more harshly penalized? Should a player asserting his/her rights under the rules be penalized? 1. If there's a question from the group, I'd play a provisional. 2. If the TD tried to allocate a penalty more strict than the outcome of their chosen interpretation of the provisional they'd have a problem.

Really, the answer on the official's call is 803.1 F...

F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute
is not covered by the rules, the decision
shall be made in accordance with fairness.
Often a logical extension of the closest
existing rule or the principles embodied
in these rules will provide guidance for
determining fairness.

The problem with "Spirit of the Rules" is that people have very different ideas as to what is within the "Spirit of the Rules" Under "Spirit of the Rules" you could have someone that thinks that counting wedgies is against the "Spirit of the Rules" or that you shouldn't be able to exercise your right to call any disc unplayable (the rule should be called "undesirable lie" but the current name matches ball golf...).

And Phil isn't cheating, he isn't violating the "spirit of the rules" he's a smart golfer that is using the rules to his advantage... he's cheating no more so than the guy who follows the rule that says you get to stop counting strokes on the hole after you hole out... in fact the PGA tour today said "Because the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons is permitted for play, public comments or criticisms characterizing their use as a violation of the Rules of Golf as promulgated by the USGA are inappropriate at best."

wsfaplau
Feb 01 2010, 05:00 PM
Reallybadputter - You would run the risk of being more harshly penalized in several ways.
Please note I don't agree with all the possible rulings but you do put yourself in jeopardy for additional penalties.

One way is the TD isn't quite as familiar with the nuances of the rules as you and COULD say you can't use that throw, therefore you threw your next shot from the wrong spot and therefore should have had more throws therefore your scorecard was incorrect and here is a 2 throw penalty. (good thing you played a provisional)

Another way is the TD could say you are cheating by disobeying the ruling from an official and DQ you under 804.05A3

Another way is the TD could make up some other ruling out of the blue.

I've seen some pretty crazy rulings by TDs over the years, not all of defendable, but they were the rulings nonetheless.

As for Phil and the wedges, I think I was clear he isn't cheating. Just as YOU wouldn't be cheating in your scenario. But you still MIGHT get penalized.

Peace

exczar
Feb 01 2010, 05:37 PM
Chuck,

I am leaning towards the opinion that what occured on the teepad was indeed a throw, and that there are conflicts within the rules.

From the Definitions section (800):

"Throw: The propulsion of a disc that causes it to change its position from the teeing area or the lie."

This definition is clearly a physical one, and does not address the issue of whether or not the stance taken was legal or not. There needs to be some verbage added, something along the lines of, "if some action of the disc and/or the player that necessitates a rethrow occurs before the disc passes the incorrect side of the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, then, for the purposes of this rule, there was no throw taken."

That would negate the precedence of the mandatory over the foot fault, which some have concluded there is.

cgkdisc
Feb 01 2010, 05:48 PM
The main thing that probably should be added somewhere in the General rules section is something to the effect that rules be applied in timing sequence during a throw if there are multiple rules impacted throughout the throw. That's common sense that the RC assumes would be followed but it might as well be made clear.

exczar
Feb 01 2010, 05:56 PM
That's common sense that the RC assumes would be followed


Oh, oh, my side hurts from laughing so hard after reading that sentence!

RhynoBoy
Feb 26 2010, 01:17 AM
I got into an argument with Ron Convers about this at our last tournament. He didn't believe me that the missed mando took precedence over the OB. I told him to "ask Chuck" about it, so he may give you a call about it someday!

RhynoBoy
Mar 08 2010, 12:15 PM
This was a big problem on the double mando hole at the Vista course during the Memorial. I watched many pro's play this wrong. Their discs went OB just feet before the mando, continued past the mando and came to rest. The spotter would often walk up, retrieve their disc and place it where it crossed the OB line.

Apparently this is a much more common problem than I thought. When I tried to explain the correct ruling to the group, nobody believed me. 3/4ths the other spectators also thought the disc be played from the OB line, not missed mando.

Chris Hysell
Mar 08 2010, 06:09 PM
This was a big problem on the double mando hole at the Vista course during the Memorial. I watched many pro's play this wrong. Their discs went OB just feet before the mando, continued past the mando and came to rest. The spotter would often walk up, retrieve their disc and place it where it crossed the OB line.

Apparently this is a much more common problem than I thought. When I tried to explain the correct ruling to the group, nobody believed me. 3/4ths the other spectators also thought the disc be played from the OB line, not missed mando.


On the same double mando hole we had a roller make the mando, go out of bounds and then circle round it to come to rest safely short of the mando and in bounds at that 4 foot area. In my mind the player was both in bounds and had the option of throwing the shot either left or right of the mando since he had already made the proper side. The spotter still called the marshall who agreed with the groups decision which is as I saw it.

The next time I played that hole I mentioned our earlier play and the call. He almost swayed my opinion. His view was that mandos are meant to control the direction of play and that all shots are to go to the proper side. The mando was put into place to prevent the hole from being played across a highly congested pedestrian area.

What is the purpose of the mando? What is the correct call?

cgkdisc
Mar 08 2010, 06:17 PM
Once the mando is made, you do not have to continue to play thru it if your disc curls around back in front of it again. The definition of a mando does not say anything specifically why it was designed whether it be for the challenge, direction of flow or safety. If safety is involved, then the designer may have made a mistake in the first place because a few players will grossly miss the mando anyway flying where you don't want them to go.

RhynoBoy
Mar 08 2010, 06:26 PM
This seems like it would be a good scenario to have on the NT exam.

exczar
Mar 08 2010, 06:37 PM
Speakin of which, have "they" posted a list of who has passed the test, as was previously stated? And if so, could someone kindly provide me with a link?

cgkdisc
Mar 08 2010, 07:05 PM
Everyone who played at the Memorial in a Pro division had a little check mark by their name that they passed the test. Take a look.

exczar
Mar 08 2010, 07:18 PM
I saw that already, but how about all the players that didn't play there?