dixonjowers
Dec 30 2013, 11:24 AM
We had an interesting situation that caused much discussion and I would like to get some other opinions on the matter.

Here is a basic layout of the hole where B=Basket, M1= Mando Tree 1, M2=Mando Tree 2, O=Oak Tree, D=Disc and T=Tee Box, the vertical, dashed line represents the OB line (right of it being out of bounds) Mandos are supposed to pass on the left side of the tree. The dots are just place holders to be able to draw the picture.

B................................................. ..|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|
......................M2.......................... .|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|...........D
.............................O.................... ..|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|
.......................M1......................... .|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|
.................................................. ....|
..................T............................... ..|

Player A drives passing M1 on the right, then striking O and landing on the wrong side of the OB line. It was clearly past M1 and clearly short of M2. There was no drop zone marked for missing the mando so the player placed a mini to the left side of M1, with group agreement, and completed the hole and it was scored a 4, three total throws plus one penalty stroke for missing the mando. While looking at the rule sheet on the next hole we noticed that it said that "There are two mandos but you only have to make one of them". We began speaking with the TD who was playing 2 cards behind us but we quickly realized that the discussion would take a while. Since the hole was already completed, we agreed to have the discussion after the round, before the cards were turned in.

Question 1...
Was the drop next to the Mando tree a correct drop?

Question 2...
If that was not a correct drop, where should it have been played from?

Question 3...
If that was not a correct drop, what is the penalty?

krupicka
Dec 30 2013, 04:33 PM
Ignoring for a minute the strange course rules where you only need to make one of them...
From the drawing it looks like M2 was neither missed nor made and shouldn't be a factor in this discussion.
If you miss a mando, and no drop zone exists, then the next throw should be taken from the previous lie.

So this was not a correct drop and should have been played from the tee. Misplay discovered more than one throw after the infraction is generally a two stroke penalty.

With the local course rules that you only have to make one of the mandos, it seems that missing M1 would always be irrelevant. It only determines whether or not you need to make M2. A local course rule like this for a PDGA should require a waiver from the Tour Manager.

Using these course rules, the drop should have been for the OB (where it went out or previous lie) and then the player must correctly make the mando for M2.

JoakimBL
Jan 04 2014, 04:59 PM
I agree with krupica.
And I really question the logic behind the weird mando rule, and the TD not making such a rule extraordinarily clear at the players meeting.

Martin_Bohn
Jan 06 2014, 02:20 PM
which mando were you supposed to observe? the first or second? that will determine how you should have played the hole............

bruce_brakel
Jan 16 2014, 06:33 PM
I disagree with Mike. Mainly for the fun of it.

Since the player only has to make one mando, and the rule does not say which one, I think it is his call which mando he has to make. After missing the first mando, he could call that a missed mando, or call that the mando he did not have to make. He called it as missed, making M2 the one he does not have to make. By calling M1 missed, then he is not OB because the OB disc is beyond the mando line, although that rule seems to have fallen out of the rulebook.

Either way, he played from the wrong lie after missing M1 and going OB. However, he played the wrong lie after following a group consensus on where the rules required him to drop. Hmmm.

A1: Not a correct drop. If you miss a mando and there is no drop zone, you go back to the previous lie.
A2: It should be played as OB from where it was last in bounds or as OB from the tee, his choice, or as a missed mando from the tee, also his choice due to the funky local semi-mando situation. I think the player has his choice since he has his choice which mando to make.
A3: As to the penalty, I think there is a serious issue of fairness and the spirit of the rules if a player plays according to the group call and then the group is allowed to later rescind its call. I would say that once the group agreed on the mando drop zone, if no one announced an intent to appeal that call to an official or the TD, and the player then played according to the group call, then that's the end of it. They called it wrong, but he relied on their call and no one clearly expressed their desire to appeal that call. See the appeal rule if you disagree.

I used to see this a lot at tournaments. The group reaches a consensus on how to call the o.b. or the mando or whatever, they play on, and then when the round is done the Weasel wants to raise it with the TD. Weasels should be shot, in season or out of season. They are vermin and it is always vermin season. There might not be a weasel here, but the weasel rule should still apply! Once you play on according to the group consensus, if no one declares an intent to appeal, that situation is over.

The player missed the first mando and called it missed, basically electing the first mando as the one he had to make. So he get's a penalty for missing the mando. He missed the mando before he went OB so the OB never happened. He played his lie according to the group consensus and no one announced an intention to appeal, so that ends the discussion as to the proper lie. He gets his score plus the missed mando penalty.

JoakimBL
Jan 18 2014, 07:46 AM
So as long as the group agree that it's ok, you don't have to follow the rules? Nevermind the fairness of players in other groups? It must be the player's own responsibility to live up to the rules, and if the group disagrees, he has the option to play provisionals. If the player misplays a hole either by mistake or by group consensus, it's is still a misplay and should be penalized as such.
In this situation however, it is a poor job of the TD not making sure the players understand the rules and how to play this particular hole.

krupicka
Jan 20 2014, 10:27 AM
Bruce, I'll concede your point that the player could choose which mando he is choosing to follow, but I have to disagree with the situation being over once there is group consensus. Maybe you are used to playing in events where an entire division is on one card, but since a misplay affects the player's standing amongst the entire division, the TD still has the final say and can correct the penalties (including adding a misplay penalty if appropriate). It is the player's responsibility to know and follow the rules. It's no different than a group adding up a players score incorrectly. There may have been group consensus on the total, but it it's wrong the player still gets their actual score + 2.

I have reread the Appeals section and admit I haven't payed close enough attention to the details here. But let's assume that a member of the group no longer has the right to bring it to the TD if he didn't declare his intention to Appeal. If a member of a different group brings it to the TDs attention does that change things?

What if the TD simply overhears a discussion about this amongst the players, should the TD step in and make a ruling?

bruce_brakel
Jan 20 2014, 12:09 PM
I can cite the rule that requires a player to express an intent to appeal the group's decision or the official's decision in order to bring the issue to the attention of the TD. Can you cite the rule that allows the TD to step in and make a ruling where no one has reserved the right to appeal? If you can cite that rule, which do you think should usually apply where the group has made a consensus ruling on a funky TD-created situation and the player has accepted the group ruling and played accordingly?

The spirit of the game [this is in one of the rules documents, by the way] is that generally we compete without officials on hand to make rules calls. We call the rules individually and by the consensus of the majority of the group. If you don't like the consensus and you're a player, you express your intention to appeal. If you're the thrower and you know someone is appealing, then you also know you might want to take a provisional and play it both ways.

Take the situation that started the conversation. Suppose the thrower thought he had to unwind from where you were last in bounds. Another player says he should play from where he was last in bounds, but ignore the mando because you only have to make one mando. Another player says he can play that as the mando and take his drop on the good side of the mando. And the fourth thinks he can play it as his mando and take your drop at the tee. Playing four provisionals would be very time consuming and confusing. If no one is appealing, and the group reaches a majority consensus on something that he agrees with, doesn't it make sense to just play by the group consensus? And if someone wants to raise it later but they have not let everyone know they are raising it later, doesn't it make sense to tell the weasel to hunt for chickens in some other coop?

The approach I'm advocating is what I've seen Gary Lewis do at every tournament he runs. It used to annoy the heck out of me. Gary, I'd think, you can't just let the group play by any rules they think are the rules. But in fact, that is the rule. It is in the rule books. It is a group called game. A player who does not like the group call is supposed to declare his intention to appeal it.

krupicka
Jan 20 2014, 12:58 PM
805.1.A supports the requirement that a player needs to express their intent to appeal promptly.

801.01F Supports the TD making calls on rules violations. No time limit is given except for 805.02.H.1. This rule also states that penalty throws may be assessed when the infraction is discovered. It makes no limitations as to the method of discovery.

JoakimBL
Jan 20 2014, 04:02 PM
The approach I'm advocating is what I've seen Gary Lewis do at every tournament he runs. It used to annoy the heck out of me. Gary, I'd think, you can't just let the group play by any rules they think are the rules. But in fact, that is the rule. It is in the rule books. It is a group called game. A player who does not like the group call is supposed to declare his intention to appeal it.

So a group decides they want to take 1's on every hole and they agree, no one declares the intent to appeal, and so the score is correct and stands. You have now destroyed the game of disc golf.

bruce_brakel
Jan 24 2014, 01:37 AM
I think there is still a rule against cheating.

JoakimBL
Jan 25 2014, 05:08 AM
Is that not a group call? So what rules are the group allowed to call, and what rules cannot be bent by a group decision? Of course my scenario was very extreme, but the point remains the same. All groups are supposed to play be the same rules.

araydallas
Jan 31 2014, 11:40 AM
Interesting...

Several things. And, ahem, I was at that event...

First, I do believe that the TD could have clarified, but guys, this was the situation:
This was the first sanctioned event at the course, a private course, that has been "evolving" over time for the past year and a half or so. The TD is a new one... a very organized guy and lover of our sport who is doing his best to create more events around our area and try to be fair. Seeing the distances on that course and the design of Hole #3, the design with the "either 1 of 2" mandos "seemingly" made sense, but unfortunately, there's not a rulebook for that type of mando situation. The drawing is a little off as I think the tee is a little bit more to the left and the M2 is a little more to the right. That OB line down the right side is actually the course boundary OB and the next hole is a short one running parallel to the OB, coming back south with the OB to the left of tee #4 (right of hole #3). They mentioned that OB course boundary for hole 4, but not on hole 3 (this one) because it had never happened before. In my estimation there is about 60 ft to the right of the two mandos (which are supposed to protect the next fairway) to get to the OB. (Dixon might jab me on that, because in my old age my sight is not as good as it used to be.) And that Oak tree is only 75ft off the tee. I and many others have played that hole many times as he was working on the design, and up until that point, we'd never yet seen someone miss either mando and ricochet OB. That was some fluky tree-jection there. I'd seen players miss the first one and ricochet toward the next hole's fairway, but never all the way past OB. And I've seen some bad misses and bad ricochets on that hole. It's weird b/c that shot had to go really really far after hitting the Oak tree to get OB. On that very hole I actually made both mandos the second round and nearly went OB deep across the creek some 90 ft to the right of the basket. The course designer probably never imagined the OP situation occurring, so consequently the perfect storm of events led to the what we had.


Ruling (option) #1 � Taking it as the group saw it ... they get to (IMO) "agree" that it was a missed mando, even though he had not yet passed the second one. However, once they "agreed" it was to be ruled a missed mando, the rules dictate the next lie is the previous lie; there was no marked missed mando drop zone.

Ruling (option) #2 � perhaps the nature of the "either 1 of 2" mandos means the mando is not yet missed, Since you only have to make 1, you can't have it ruled a missed mando until you've missed both. In that case it would be play for the OB spot with the penalty and continue to attempt to make 1 of the mandos. [This defeats the purpose of the mandos protecting hole #4's fairway, as he'd be smack dab in the middle of it; however, had the disc not gone OB, then the ruling would have been obvious. It was the going OB that caused him to be able to call it a missed mando.]

Ruling (option) #3 � if indeed the mando is a missed mando, then you have to say that the 2nd mando would be the critical one. To miss you have to have missed both. And if that�s the case I still don�t know what to do.

I don't fault the group. There were two many factors and possibilities here, depending upon how you saw it. Plus the course was still in it's cruder phase, and sometimes we all play it "how we think" the course designer intended. I've since talked with him & the TD about how to make that rule for tournaments -- they are only going to have one mando. Hopefully we can convince him to do that all the time.

All that being said, I say the answers are:

Q1 -- NO... absolutely not, because there was no marked DZ there, in fact no marked DZ on the hole... for anything.
Q2 -- That's a harder question, depending on the ruling... but to me there were only two options to drop from -- either the last spot inbounds or the previous lie which was the tee.
Q3 -- well the penaly fro a misplayed hole is 2 throws ... the group agreement, though confounds me. Like some have said, the "appealing person" may come from another group who noticed what happened. And if he immediately tells everyone on his own card ..."see what he's doing over there, I'm gonna appeal that to the TD," isn't that an immediate intent to appeal? I do agree that it can be appealed later it just doesn't feel right. Ultimately, I've learned that if I think the group is wrong or even if I'm unsure if the group is right or wrong, I need to play a provisional myself.