Making the mando and being behind it

[krupicka]

Those are the 3 big issues.

The big issue is that people learn the rules by word-of-mouth rather than actually reading them.

 

[txmxer]

BTW: I've talked to players about the new mando rule and the fact that it is effective from both directions (tee to target and target to tee)....some basically called me a liar, but the majority said I had it wrong....it's only from the tee to the target. I discussed the explanations that have been on this thread and we've come to the realization that this is a rule that is going to be enforced different ways.

1. People aren't aware it is omni directional
2. People aren't aware the rule now applies to the disc during its throw and not just where it comes to rest.
3. People aren't aware that if ANY part of the throw (reachback/backswing/etc) causes the disc to fully enter the restricted area it is a violation of the rule.

Those are the 3 big issues.

on 1, I'd go with bi-directional being as the mando is a two dimensional plane.

But, in general, I agree. Seems that 1 meter relief would be a benefit, but determining which direction the disc entered the restricted space from becomes critical to proper play, but might not be a common problem. Most mandos I have seen have adequate visibility to determine which direction the disc was going when it stopped.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's a sadistic hole design when following the 2022 rules. You can "make" each mando and still risk "missing it" on the back side with your next throw. Imagine play if there were no marked Drop Zones (DZ)! You can say no designer would do this but it's no worse potential punishment than using OB rope to make things difficult. The Missed Mando Line for Mando 2 works just like an OB line on the edge of a green.

 

[txmxer]

Here's a sadistic hole design when following the 2022 rules. You can "make" each mando and still risk "missing it" on the back side with your next throw. Imagine play if there were no marked Drop Zones (DZ)! You can say no designer would do this but it's no worse potential punishment than using OB rope to make things difficult. The Missed Mando Line for Mando 2 works just like an OB line on the edge of a green.

the line on that would be miss the second mando and go to DZ2. It's not sadistic, it's bad.

 

[Cgkdisc]

the line on that would be miss the second mando and go to DZ2. It's not sadistic, it's bad.

You're right. Let's eliminate DZ 2 so you had to rethrow from previous lie. Sadistically better now?

 

[1978]

Here's a sadistic hole design when following the 2022 rules. You can "make" each mando and still risk "missing it" on the back side with your next throw. Imagine play if there were no marked Drop Zones (DZ)! You can say no designer would do this but it's no worse potential punishment than using OB rope to make things difficult. The Missed Mando Line for Mando 2 works just like an OB line on the edge of a green.

Who would design this hole?

 

[1978]

While the new rule is confusing I can see why...they have it.
1. If you have a Mando that you cannot see from the tee a group have no way to know how a disc got to its lie. It could have made the mando correctly and rolled back. In the past this would be a good Mando make. You would need a spotter to determine this. We eliminated a number of Mando's in 2018 for Am worlds because we couldnt guarantee that we could have a spotter in each place every round. If players know the rule that you always have to make the mando AND have a lie on the correct side of the plane to be safely past the mando then things are less confusing, regardless where the disc flies.

2. My sketch.
Ive seen some Mandos that force a play down a tunnel to lengthen a hole, create challenge, or for safety reasons. With the old rule you could attempt a shot that curls around the Mando and back towards the tee to make a second shot go over the unintended fairway. In my sketch you have a shot that makes the Mando but curls back across the plane. Intentional or not. In old rules you could now throw over the restricted area. In new rules, you have to make the Mando again which forces you down the correct fairway.

I dont mind the rule. I mind how poorly most people mark Mandos and choose what object the Mando is on. I mind the choices people make to add unnecessary Mandos and the fact that most players have absolutely NO idea how to play a Mando since there are so many questions surrounding it. The new rule keeps it more simple IF the TD or course properly marks the Mando and the line of the invisible plane.

 

[BillFleming]

I play a similar hole with a mando used to keep people from throwing over the road. It's a single mando and the plane is perpendicular to the flight path. With regard to your sketch, if I were playing the hole, unless explicitly shown otherwise, I would assume that the mando planes are perpendicular to the flight path as marked by the redlines I added to your sketch. In my view, the brown line/disc path would not have entered a restricted space.

The tee sign says the mando is between the poles. But we still have people who ignore tee signs and throw wherever they want....mainly in casual play - but that's a different matter.

 

[txmxer]

You're right. Let's eliminate DZ 2 so you had to rethrow from previous lie. Sadistically better now?

yes, you have achieved evil level 1

 

[txmxer]

The tee sign says the mando is between the poles. But we still have people who ignore tee signs and throw wherever they want....mainly in casual play - but that's a different matter.

thanks--that clarifies it. Still, a bit of an odd way to do it IMO.

 

[rhatton1]

It is always to the basket target. There are many instances where players did not understand when and when not to apply the old rule with respect to the LOP. The hope is there are less ways for a player to screw it up now.

Good. The old was very confusing for players. It may be worth clarifying this as a change though as it is not mentioned in the original article about major and minor changes and peoples stances to LOP on mandos has consistently been an issue and question at tournaments.

 

[Jah Plastifari]

Should a TD always mark a line to help define the restricted space?

If such a line is not in place how would the exact orientation of the restricted space be determined? Would it always be parallel to the front of the tee?

 

[krupicka]

Should a TD always mark a line to help define the restricted space?

If such a line is not in place how would the exact orientation of the restricted space be determined? Would it always be parallel to the front of the tee?

Yes TDs need to mark it. (They should have been marking it before too). There is no default when it is unmarked.

 

[Jah Plastifari]

Yes TDs need to mark it. (They should have been marking it before too). There is no default when it is unmarked.

Thanks, follow ups:

Is the line part of the restricted space?

Does the restricted space play like OB for a disc at rest, i.e. the disc must be surrounded by restricted space to be a miss?

 

[ToddL]

Here's a sadistic hole design when following the 2022 rules. You can "make" each mando and still risk "missing it" on the back side with your next throw. Imagine play if there were no marked Drop Zones (DZ)! You can say no designer would do this but it's no worse potential punishment than using OB rope to make things difficult. The Missed Mando Line for Mando 2 works just like an OB line on the edge of a green.

The rules are not written to account for poor course design. Designers and TDs still bear responsibility to create reasonable courses and course rules.

I dont mind the rule. I mind how poorly most people mark Mandos and choose what object the Mando is on. I mind the choices people make to add unnecessary Mandos and the fact that most players have absolutely NO idea how to play a Mando since there are so many questions surrounding it. The new rule keeps it more simple IF the TD or course properly marks the Mando and the line of the invisible plane.

This is the real answer for anything involving mandos, IMO. First, if you can avoid having a mando, don't create one. Second, if you absolutely have to have one, define it well.

This is kind of parallel to a sentence that I have to repeat all the time: The PDGA rules don't tell you what is OB; the rules tell you how to play the OB. If a TD does a poor job defining an OB line, then the PDGA rules can't help you very much. Likewise with a mando, if a TD does a poor job designating the mando, the PDGA rules aren't going to save you. The TD has to do proper preparation.

Single direction, you roll back through it and you have to pass the mando correctly again on the next shot, you don't get an arbitrary stroke for an unfortunate roll, it's much easier for the group to make a decision than the current which has them trying to work out where a roll might have gone on it's way to rest (see diagram here for what I mean, good luck group working out whether that disc rolled across the plane or not from 80 meters away - https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/rwvoz8/i_have_a_question_about_the_new_mando_rules/ ) and is just more intuitive and fits better with the wording of 804.01.A?

That s_tl guy seems to know what he's talking about, whoever it is. It's a shame no one else there agrees with him.

 

[txmxer]

I may be misunderstanding the rule and some of the comments, but this is what I envisioned. The disc clears the mando, gets a tree kick and rolls backward on the wrong side of the mando and lays down on the mando line. It is my understanding, this is not a missed mando?

If it is not a missed mando, the player then must take a stance behind the mando line and make a throw from behind the mando line. Can the player throw the blue path, or must the next throw follow the green line?

Did I miss something or has this scenario been clarified?

 

[Steve West]

Did I miss something or has this scenario been clarified?

Stay tuned.

 

[txmxer]

Stay tuned.

I thought that was the current status based on the discussion thus far.

 

[1978]

Did I miss something or has this scenario been clarified?

As with many of the sketches on here your drawing doesn't show what you are asking. The thickness of a designed line is the plane. If it is a tree with no other marking that is the thickness, if it is string or paint its that thick, etc. This is important to know. Your disc spans the thickness of the line. So since it touches in bounds (the correct side of the Mando line plane) you take your lie as in bounds. You haven't illustrated the disc passing back past teh plane. In your drawing, you can throw it where ever you want because you successfully made the mando and never crossed back behind the missed mando line plane.

If the disc had completely cleared or was touching the line but none of it was on the IB side, according to the new ruling, you would have to re-clear the Mando. Here are the answers to scenarios as I understand them now.

1. Disc passes mando object correctly and comes to rest on far side of Mando line plan. No penalty keep playing. Blue Line
2. Discs passes mando object on correct side and comes to rest after hitting and rolling back across the near side of the Mando line plane. No penalty. You have to re-clear the Mando. Orange Line
3. Disc Passes mando correctly and is touching the line (none in bounds) No penalty pass the Mando correctly- Red Line
4. Completely miss Mando. (Penalty) Throw from previous lie or proceed to DZ, wherever that is marked. Green Line
5. Never cross the missed Mando Line Plane, no penalty, properly make Mando (Pink)
6. Miss Mando line plane but bounce back. I don't know, but I think you play with no penalty but have to make the Mando correctly. Black Line

Basically, your only penalty is for missing the mando object and line plan and coming to rest on the far side of that plane

 

[1978]

Did I miss something or has this scenario been clarified?

BTW. Your image is correct if the line represents the actual thickness of the line laid down by the designer or if no physical line, the thickness of the object that is the Mandatory. If the Mando object thickness is that of your dot, your drawing is incorrect.