This past weekend on hole 15 one of the player's in my threesome drives off the tee. He makes the first two mandatories (trees on right and left), then flies OB prior to the third mandatory (the light post on the right). His drive went OB prior to reaching the third mandatory and never came back in bounds. He approached the drop zone for the third mando when I pointed out that he was further back, where he went OB. Both he and the other player argued he'd missed the 3rd mando and therefore had to go to the drop zone. I said he went OB prior to the 3rd mando, so the mando did not come into play. However, I did not push the point and he played from the drop zone on the 3rd mando rather than about 20 ft back--and having to still negotiate that mando.

If your disc is OB prior to reaching a mando, and remains OB the whole time, then doesn't that take precedence over the mando? That is, you mark your lie where it went OB, right? And still have to negotiate the mando?

Second scenario: hole #2 had a drop zone if you went OB off your drive. Isn't that making the hole an island hole a la USDGC? Thus, there is no OB per se, but rather the marking shows a mando line encircling the pin. I think several people mis-played that hole on the first day (taking an OB lie near the basket rather than going to the drop zone further back).

Question: can you make a drop zone for going OB? I thought drop zones were only for mandatories.

Thanks in advance!
Steve :D

Although I also find it counterintuitive, missing a mando supercedes going OB. Since missing/making a mando happens in the air, and OB doesn't happen until you land, the mando is applicable first. So yes, he should have thrown from the third drop zone.

And yes, you can make a drop zone for OB, although this specific instance described sounds a little strange to me.

Here is a link to the Q & A detailing the proper way to mark your lie.

http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php

Rule Question: Missed the mandatory, went OB
Question: I was playing a hole with a mandatory tree ahead of the tee to the left, with an OB road running along the hole a bit further left. The mandatory is to the right side of the tree. My drive missed the tree on the left and flew another 250 feet before landing on the OB road. Where do I play my next shot?

This question was posed by Chuck Kennedy, who provided the following illustration:

http://www.pdga.com/images/rules/mandorule.gif





Applicable Rules:
803.08.Out Of Bounds
803.11 Mandatories

803.08.E states that missing the mandatory takes precedence:

E. A throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.11). It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters.

That leads to straightforward rulings in the cases illustrated above:

Shot C, route 2: The disc has not missed the mandatory because it has not crossed the mandatory line on the wrong side, therefore it is played where it was last in-bounds with a one-throw penalty.

Shot B, route 1: This shot has missed the mandatory and then gone OB. According to the rule above, missing the mandatory takes precedence. The next shot is played from the drop zone with a one-throw penalty.

Shot A, route 2: This shot is in-bounds but has missed the mandatory. The next shot is played from the drop zone with a one-throw penalty.

Shot B, route 2: This shot has missed the mandatory and gone OB. Missing the mandatory takes precedence, and the next shot is played from the drop zone with a one-throw penalty.

Conscientious TDs will of course endeavor not to place hazards (such as mandatories and OB) close to each other, and, if it becomes necessary to do so, will ensure in the players' meeting that the players understand how to play the different possible scenarios.

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes

So, to, only narrow this down a bit, this case involves shot C. The disc never passed the mandatory line, therefore the shot is played from the OB mark. The mando only takes precedence over OB when the mando line has been crossed.

Shot C, route 2: The disc has not missed the mandatory because it has not crossed the mandatory line on the wrong side, therefore it is played where it was last in-bounds with a one-throw penalty.

This si the scenario that I feel BEST fits Steves situation...

The Player went OB..BEFORE reaching the 3rd Mando.....SO he should have marked his lie WHERE IT WENT OB...NOT at the drop zone....... :o

This is the way I read it...maybe the EXACT circumstances CHANGE the way it is ruled???? Without seeing a Hole Diagram its hard to make HARD ruling... ;)

Anyone got a "Map" of the Hole??

He makes the first two mandatories (trees on right and left), then flies OB prior to the third mandatory (the light post on the right). His drive went OB prior to reaching the third mandatory and never came back in bounds.


I've played this hole a few times, and it is almost impossible to go OB before the third mandy without missing the third mandy, unless your disc smacks that third mandy pole.

The third mandy keeps you from pumping a low hard hyzer through the double-mandy and out over the parking lot, looking for skip back in bounds. I am 98% sure the original poster is saying that the shot went OB and also missed the third mandy, in which case the subsequent shot was played correctly.

Thanks for that link--I should have checked the Q&A section! :o

803.12 Mandatories
A. A mandatory restricts the path the disc may take to the target. A disc must pass the correct side of the mandatory before the hole is completed. Once the disc has completely passed the mandatory line on the correct side (even if it subsequently re-crosses the line), the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.
(1) The mandatory line is the line marked by the director or course designer to indicate when a disc has passed or missed 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.

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

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.

D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass 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.

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.

From my reading of the above rule, I do not see--explicitly--where mandos take priority over OB other than you do not further penalize a person if they miss a mando AND land OB. Section E does not indicate order.

The sentence "It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters." does not, in my opinion, cover whether this is before or after missing the mando. It gets back to intent of the rule, which I do not know, but I would surmise that if you missed the mando (penalty) and *subsequently* had another penalty, you'd only be assessed the first (i.e. it's not cumulative).

So when I read the rule, I figured it meant an OB (or 2 m rule) penalty occuring *after* the missed mando (on the same throw) did not add strokes to your score on top of the missed mando.

It seems illogical to go OB, stay OB, slide past a mando, and move up to the drop zone.

So my argument is this: since the rule does not state the order of missed mando and possibly either OB or 2 m rule, I can see the rule was written with the intent of this order: missed mando THEN landed OB or above 2 m, and thus the mark is at the drop zone and only a penalty is for the missed mando. The alternative is that the disc went OB, stayed OB, and hence the lie is where it was last IB and the mando must still be negotiated.

I understand Chuck's drawings--I'm just arguing that the rule cited by he and RC does not explicitly give precedence to the mando in the case of Route 2 shot B.

To put a point on it: with a little practice and no cars on hole #15, I could roller a shot fair past the first three mandos, then go OB onto the parking lot and roll past the fourth mando. The RC would say take your next shot at drop zone #4 sitting two! That really changes the hole...

Although I don't have much experience with mandos, the layout on 15 seems to mix mandos and OB in way discouraged by the RC.

Thanks for everyone's help and patience!
Steve

Below is a link to a photo of the hole. The third mandatory in question is not shown on this photo, but it is the silver light pole just to the right of the dark tree trunk in front of arrow.

Click on #15 (http://www.lamiradadiscgolfclub.com/html/champ_tee_photos.html)

Also, here is a reprint of the actual written rules that every card received.



Hole #15 � 1030� Par 5. Double Mandatory between two marked trees off the tee. Mandatory to left of marked light poles. If double mando is missed on tee shot, re-tee with one stroke penalty. If any other mando is missed, proceed to drop zone for that mando and take a one shot penalty. If any shot passes to wrong side of any mando and comes to rest beyond mando line (whether disc lands OB or fair) proceed to drop zone (or re-tee) with a one stroke penalty. Curb and beyond is OB. Sidewalk and beyond is OB.

I believe the jist of the order argument goes like this:

When you cross the mandy line on the wrong side, you have missed the mandy at that moment.

When your disc crosses into OB, it is not deemed OB until it comes to rest because it could kick, skip, or roll back inbounds.

A 2MR infraction, if the the 2MR is in effect, is not determined until the disc comes to rest and you arrive at your lie.

If your disc misses a mandy, comes to rest OB and also above 2MR, it missed the mandy first because OB and 2MR require the disc to come to rest, whereas the mandy was missed while the disc was in the air.

Wow, can a TD re-write the rule book like this? Or is this the case of a further clarification of an ambiguous rule in order to help things run more smoothly? The emphasis was added by me to point out the text that applies here.





Hole #15 � 1030� Par 5. Double Mandatory between two marked trees off the tee. Mandatory to left of marked light poles. If double mando is missed on tee shot, re-tee with one stroke penalty. If any other mando is missed, proceed to drop zone for that mando and take a one shot penalty. If any shot passes to wrong side of any mando and comes to rest beyond mando line (whether disc lands OB or fair) proceed to drop zone (or re-tee) with a one stroke penalty. Curb and beyond is OB. Sidewalk and beyond is OB.

To put a point on it: with a little practice and no cars on hole #15, I could roller a shot fair past the first three mandos, then go OB onto the parking lot and roll past the fourth mando. The RC would say take your next shot at drop zone #4 sitting two! That really changes the hole...



Steve,

If your shot passed the first 3 mandos cleanly, then did not pass the 4th mando cleanly, whether it was in bounds or not when it passed the 4th mando line, it would be played at the 4th mando drop zone.

But what you said made me think about something else. What if we had mandos in series, ala Discathon, and a roller passed the first, third and fourth mandos correctly, but did not pass the second one correctly. Obvioulsy, it should be placed at the second mando drop zone, but here is the question: Does the disc's path after it misses a mando (OB or not) have any effect on subsequent mandos? Using my example, once thrown from the second mando drop zone, can the disc's subsequent paths go anywhere in regards to the third and fourth mandos, since it has already been passed correctly, or does they have to be passed correctly (again), since, and this is my interpretation of the rules, once a mando is missed, the path of the disc on that same throw cannot affect the passing status of any mando past the one that was missed?

It seems that what makes Steve's case interesting is that the mandatory line in Chuck's illustration extends into the OB. So where a disc comes to rest in the OB matters. That's the part that's counterintuitive to me. It would seem to me the lie for a disc that goes out of bounds and never comes back in bounds would be taken where it went out. I don't see any reason to extend the mando line into the OB. If the mando line does extend into the OB then it would seem that the shot was played correctly at the GSC.

<font color="green"> 803.12 Mandatories
B. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line.</font>

It seems that both rules require that the disc come to rest. In the case where the disc comes to rest both in an OB area and also having crossed the mando line on the wrong side, wouldn't you then revert to which event happened first: crossed the OB line or crossed the mando line?

If the mando rule was written with the knowledge that a disc can go OB prior to the mando, come to rest OB but past the mando line (which extends "infinitely" in one direction), then kudos to them for anticipating that scenrio. However, except for this weekend, my limited mando experiences never had OB co-located with the mandos. I find it hard to believe that the rule was written in a context other than the following chrono-sequence:

1. Missed mando
2. Disc at rest OB or &gt;2 m (rule in effect)

The RC then has to rule on how many strokes to allocate. Mando takes precedence and everyone says "That makes sense."

But did they really think about the scenario of going OB *first*, then missing the mando? The first infraction was going OB, then missing the mando. And I understand being OB is not determined until the disc comes to rest, but the same is true for the mando (as was pointed out up thread).

Sorry to belabor the point, but it just doesn't still well with me. However, in the end, the rules on the player's sheet trump everything, so the hole was played correctly. :)

Cheers,
Steve

I think 803.12.E is pretty clear.


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.



This gives preference to the Mandatory over OB or 2m.

In other words, for the last sentence to ever come into play, a disc needs to have 1) missed a mando by passing the mando on the incorrect side and coming to rest beyond the mando line, and 2) have come to rest either OB, above 2m or both.

In any case, the rule is clear that the penalty enforced is the Mandatory rule and the lie is marked accrodingly.

In reference to the question about spelling out the rules of how to play a hole, as long as the rules are in keeping with the PDGA rules of play (as these are) then it is OK. I would recommend the rules be explained specifically as they apply to any hole that generates confusion on a regular basis to educate and prevent misplays.

That rule only says that the throw can't be double-penalized.

In all 3 cases, the disc can't be found to be OB, above 2m nor missed mando until it has come to rest. From there, you have to determine which happened first: crossed OB, crossed the wrong side of the mando, or came to rest above 2m.

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.



The first sentence states without exception that all throws that miss the mando will be penalized and marked in accordance with 803.12.

The second sentence calrifies that statement by specifically listing other penalties that may seem to apply, but are overridden by 803.12

The OB rule states without exception that all throws that come to rest OB will be penalized and marked in accordance with the OB rule. Once again, we come back to which happened first.

You could look at the OB rule in isolation, and you would be correct, but you have a disc where at least 2 rules apply.

If you read both rules, it is clear which one should be applied since one specifically lists the other. To be complete, the OB rule should reference the Mando rule, the 2m rule already references the OB rule.

That rule only says that the throw can't be double-penalized.

In all 3 cases, the disc can't be found to be OB, above 2m nor missed mando until it has come to rest. From there, you have to determine which happened first: crossed OB, crossed the wrong side of the mando, or came to rest above 2m.

A disc is not o.b. when it crosses the line. It is o.b. when it comes to rest across the line. Keep that in mind when trying to figure out which happened first. Then the mando supercedes o.b. rule makes more sense.

That rule only says that the throw can't be double-penalized.

In all 3 cases, the disc can't be found to be OB, above 2m nor missed mando until it has come to rest. From there, you have to determine which happened first: crossed OB, crossed the wrong side of the mando, or came to rest above 2m.

A disc is not o.b. when it crosses the line. It is o.b. when it comes to rest across the line. Keep that in mind when trying to figure out which happened first. Then the mando supercedes o.b. rule makes more sense.



The disc hasn't missed the mando until it has come to rest, either.

The disc hasn't missed the mando until it has come to rest, either.



If mando is ultimately missed, no other rules apply. As soon as the wrong side mando line is crossed in flight (or roll), the mando rule will be applied unless the disc comes back over the line. Then, if the disc is OB in that position, it's OB and the original point it crossed into OB would be the mark unless player elects to rethrow.

Hmmm, that get's interesting. If a disc crosses the mando line, goes OB, hits a tree and lands on the ok side of the mando line OB, would that include a possible double penalty if a player wanted to mark the OB at the last place inbounds (which in this example would be on the bad side of the mando line). Yes I know they could re-tee, but I just thought this should be explored from a rules perspective.

I agree that the OB rule should have wording in it that mirrors the mando rule reference to the OB and 2 m rules. Wording should be added to explicitly state that the OB rule is secondary to the mando rule if the mando is missed and the disc is OB, irrespective of whether the mando line is stretching across OB or IB.

Below is a link to a photo of the hole. The third mandatory in question is not shown on this photo, but it is the silver light pole just to the right of the dark tree trunk in front of arrow.

Click on #15 (http://www.lamiradadiscgolfclub.com/html/champ_tee_photos.html)

Also, here is a reprint of the actual written rules that every card received.



Hole #15 � 1030� Par 5. Double Mandatory between two marked trees off the tee. Mandatory to left of marked light poles. If double mando is missed on tee shot, re-tee with one stroke penalty. If any other mando is missed, proceed to drop zone for that mando and take a one shot penalty. If any shot passes to wrong side of any mando and comes to rest beyond mando line (whether disc lands OB or fair) proceed to drop zone (or re-tee) with a one stroke penalty. Curb and beyond is OB. Sidewalk and beyond is OB.





That pretty much explains it... ;)

Thanks Suzette

The Mando light pole sits 2 feet from thje curb leaving only a small gap to technically miss the Mando with out leaving the fairway as an O.B. More than one person took a drop zone that was up to 1 hundred feet closer than their crossing O.B.
It is a very technical hole, i think by moving the teebox up to the second group of double-trees would eliminate all the
confusion and just make it a PAR 4 HOLE.

This was a very difficult rule to write. I understand why so many people do not know how to interpret this rule. IMO, the rule should either have been left as "unwrap", or, (because the reasoning to change the rule was to prevent playing through an area being protected), the rule should have said something to the effect of: "mandatories restrict the path a disc may take to the target. The disc must never cross the plane designating when a disc has gone too far unless it recrosses that plane in the opposite direction, and stays, on the same throw. The mandatory cannot be "made" until completion of the hole. It can only be missed. In those rare cases where a disc crosses the wrong side of a mandatory and recrosses the same line in the opposite direction, coming to rest short of that line, the player may play to the correct side without penalty. This is really all there is to it except to define the plane of no return (mandatory plane), and to reiterate the rule for those who think there is another exception. The mandatory planes are always on the wrong side of the mandatory extending to infinity. There are no planes on the correct side of mandatories. In the case of a double mandatory, there are two mandatory planes that play separately designating when a disc has gone too far. Mandatory planes should be placed to prevent play in the undesirable area and mandate play along the desired area.

OK. Since the old guard has weighed in on this, I will concede the Mando rule superceding the OB rule.

However, if the intent of a mando is really to prevent throwing into a specified area, isn't that also the intent of declaring an area OB? If you were to cross the OB line prior to reaching the mando line, wouldn't you want the more punitive rule to supercede the other?

In this case, a person could throw immediately OB and land short of the mando line. He would then take either stroke and D or the 1m in from the point of OB. However, if that person threw *past* the mando line (which would be further into the area being protected), he is rewarded by taking his next shot in the drop zone with the same stroke penalty.

Am I the only one who thinks this hole is EXTREMELY problematic? The potential to hit cars, both parked and moving, seems to be very high. :confused:

Am I the only one who thinks this hole is EXTREMELY problematic? The potential to hit cars, both parked and moving, seems to be very high. :confused:



That's why there were mandos instead of just OB. When we played the hole without the last two lightpole mandos, most players would shoot out into the parking lot, then skip back in. The hole was just supposed to be for major tourneys like Golden State or Masters, but it was so popular, the locals kept it as a regular hole.

That's why there were mandos instead of just OB.



All the same, I'm never parking my car there.

Am I the only one who thinks this hole is EXTREMELY problematic? The potential to hit cars, both parked and moving, seems to be very high. :confused:



Mike, the hole offers a test of accuracy found no where else on the course. The rest of the course is almost predominantly wide open boomers and rollers shots. This hole is one of the few on the course which forces a controlled placement shot, and that in itself gives it value.

However, with regards to safety and vehicle interaction, I couldn't agree more. I was personally shocked that a course designer, or team of course designers, allowed this hole to not only be put in for use during PDGA sanctioned tournaments but also allowed it to remain for recreational play. The parking lot on the right is an issue, but the very busy street on the left where the vast majority of right-handed throws will fade towards, is a travesty.

I was on a business trip last November and actually played the hole. I tried to play it safe and threw a Classic Roc up the gut. While I'm not saying I'm an expert, I was disappointed that even what looked like a skillfully thrown conservative shot still hyzered off OB, and I had to watch carefully while retrieving my disc to avoid getting run over by cars.

This should not be occuring in the sport of disc golf during the normal course of play.

This should not be occuring in the sport of disc golf during the normal course of play.



Thanks for the reality check Jeff. I was beginning to wonder....

This is one of those times when no matter how gonzo cool the hole is, you just have to say "no, it's too dangerous."

This hole is basically temporary while the water park is under construction. Once the construction fences come down, the DG course should be able to move back to the traditional area. La Mirada can host two 18-hole courses but the typical layout is 27 holes.

For all those who played hole 15. The last mando pole is on the right side of the fairway. If a player throws over the right side of OB and eventually passes the mando (while still OB) and hits the curb and stays OB, they get to take there next shot from the drop zone ( this can possibly save them 300 ft in distance) ??? There is no mando on the left side of the fairway opposite that last mando pole. So if someone throws over the left side OB (say a lefty hyzer) and the disc goes 350- 400 feet and eventually hits the curb and stays OB they get to take it probably 10-15 feet in front of them. Why wasn't there a mando on the left side opposite of the last mando pole??? Looks like a bail out for a righty shot but not a lefty one if you understand what I'm saying. :mad: :D

"You know, I used to consider left-handers when I designed courses, but then I realized there's only 3 or 4 of 'em, so I just said F*** 'em."
:D
-quote from a prominent Course Designer when I asked him about a specific non-left-hander-friendly hole

LW

OK. I have a question. When a players disc goes OB. And it is clearly OB as determined by the group. PDGA rule wise, must the player mark their lie prior to retrieving their disc? Secondly, can a player retrieve their OB disc and use it for their subsequent shot? I asked the Marshall at GSC about retrieving the OB disc but am stil unclear as to where this is addressed in the PDGA rule book. I would think one should mark their lie before retrieving their disc but I can't find this in the book.

You can use that disc as long as you can retrieve it within a reasonable amount of time. It mostly has to do with courtesy. You don't have to mark your lie before you pick up your disc. Most flaggers in major tournaments will grab your disc if it goes out of bounds and set it where it went out. :D
What did the Marshal say??

The only time I believe in the rules it says you can't retrieve your disc is when you have been called for a foot fault (803.04 H) without a one stroke penalty!

I agree that it would be a courtesy/excessive time problem if you went a long ways OB and you went to retrieve it!

The Marshal said that there is nothing that prevents a player from picking up their disc and nothing that requires marking the lie before they do so.

If a player moves their disc before an OB determination is made by the group, the disc is assumed to be OB and the player throws with a one-throw penalty. (803.09 D)

Signed,

The Marshal

He said that you could go get the disc, I didn't ask about marking before you retrieve the OB shot. IThat's why I asked about that. When I have an OB shot that is not right next to OB, I mark my lie and grab another disc out of my bag and make my next shot THEN go get my OB disc. I thought that was how it was supposed to be. Thanks for all the clarification. Jon, you rock BTW.