Making the mando and being behind it

[krupicka]

I think Chuck brought it up early on, but taking a meter off the plane in the direction the disc came from seems pretty straight forward or the alternative is any penetration of the plane is a missed mando. Just my .02.

That was considered (and may be considered in the future), but we were trying to keep this change very narrow. Allowing 1m relief has a lot of other considerations and is much more complicated to make sure that it is worded correctly and to work through how it would interact with the rest of the rules (OB, hazard, relief areas, etc.). It was considered as a much larger change.

 

[txmxer]

You can't come to rest on the vertical plane. It's 2D. You can come to rest through it, but if your disc is touching the line that defines the projected edge on the ground, then you are through the plane.

You know what I meant. The disc is bisected by the vertical plane without ever having fully crossed the plane.

 

[txmxer]

That was considered (and may be considered in the future), but we were trying to keep this change very narrow. Allowing 1m relief has a lot of other considerations and is much more complicated to make sure that it is worded correctly and to work through how it would interact with the rest of the rules (OB, hazard, relief areas, etc.). It was considered as a much larger change.

Understood. Thanks for keeping us posted on it.

I'm an engineer and nobody parses words/phrases like a contractor with money at stake. Disc golfers are right there with them.

 

[Ahildy13]

You know what I meant. The disc is bisected by the vertical plane without ever having fully crossed the plane.

It says any part of the disc, so you broke the plane if your disc is bisected.

Again, there is no "space," it's just a plane. Either it is broken or not broken.

 

[BillFleming]

Here is the update:

https://www.pdga.com/announcements/pdga-announces-changes-80401-mandatory-routes

I had to think about what they were trying to say in D, but once I had the mental picture it made sense.

I played an unsanctioned event last weekend where a disc passed on the correct side of a mando and rolled back around the tree on the bad side. I was the only one on the card that knew this was now a missed mando. I didn't argue for the penalty stroke, but let them know what the new rule was.

I was the course director (first time in the position) for the Memorial and we had that happen on hole 1. Made the triple mando, rolled back across the painted line on the wrong (restricted space) side. Card mate immediately told them that was a missed mando and another card mate seconded it. No questions/no argument....player immediately re-teed (course rule for the hole).

And the mando rule was changed/updated/clarified the morning that the Memorial started.

 

[txmxer]

It says any part of the disc, so you broke the plane if your disc is bisected.

Again, there is no "space," it's just a plane. Either it is broken or not broken.

This would simplify the rule in regards to the question at hand...but, from page 1:

That's a good way to think of it. The point about either side is important.

Keep in mind it's not a violation unless the disc clearly goes completely through the glass. Just making a crack doesn't count as a miss.

 

[krupicka]

I was the course director (first time in the position) for the Memorial and we had that happen on hole 1. Made the triple mando, rolled back across the painted line on the wrong (restricted space) side. Card mate immediately told them that was a missed mando and another card mate seconded it. No questions/no argument....player immediately re-teed (course rule for the hole).

And the mando rule was changed/updated/clarified the morning that the Memorial started.

Two things:
a) my apologies for timing. I was hoping it would have been able to be published a couple days earlier.
b) I'm glad to hear players knew the rules, called them, and accepted it without drama.

 

[txmxer]

wow--I had not looked at the update, my apologies. Thanks RC for your time!

 

[krupicka]

This would simplify the rule in regards to the question at hand...but, from page 1:

That's a good way to think of it. The point about either side is important.

Keep in mind it's not a violation unless the disc clearly goes completely through the glass. Just making a crack doesn't count as a miss.

Please note that the rule was updated on March 2. Steve's post was prior to the latest revision.

804.01.C If part of a thrown disc clearly enters into a restricted space, the player receives one penalty throw. The lie for the next throw is the drop zone for that mandatory. If no drop zone has been designated, the lie for the next throw is the previous lie.

 

[txmxer]

I was the course director (first time in the position) for the Memorial and we had that happen on hole 1. Made the triple mando, rolled back across the painted line on the wrong (restricted space) side. Card mate immediately told them that was a missed mando and another card mate seconded it. No questions/no argument....player immediately re-teed (course rule for the hole).

And the mando rule was changed/updated/clarified the morning that the Memorial started.

Where you there when Hammes teed off on R3? It was hard to tell that he cleared the mando from the video.

It was surprising to me how much difficulty the lead card had with that mando. Maybe being the first hole of the round made it more difficult.

 

[BillFleming]

Two things:
a) my apologies for timing. I was hoping it would have been able to be published a couple days earlier.
b) I'm glad to hear players knew the rules, called them, and accepted it without drama.

No apologies needed. Instead, thank you very much for the clarification of the rule. There was much discussion about it during the tournament, but surprisingly enough the rule change never mattered - if a disc entered the restricted space, it fully entered it. No one (to my knowledge) ever had a stance where the restricted space came into play during their throw. But it was nice to know we had a clear rule to follow if it had happened.

I was very happy and surprised that the majority of rules questions that did come to me were actually resolved by the card when I talked them through what happened and what they saw.

Again, thank you and the rest of the committee for clarifying the rule.


We had one player who was furious about a decision, but didn't take it out on us. That one actually got bumped (appealed) up to the Tournament Director (it was an AM, not a Pro....basically came down to the player not understanding a rule and wanting the decision to go his way). The other one, it was a card mate not happy with the rule but accepted the decision (I gave him the option to appeal and he chose not to).

 

[Ahildy13]

This would simplify the rule in regards to the question at hand...but, from page 1:

I know it was stated above me, but the rule is
If part of a thrown disc clearly enters into a restricted space, the player receives one penalty throw. The lie for the next throw is the drop zone for that mandatory. If no drop zone has been designated, the lie for the next throw is the previous lie.

So any part counts as breaking. There is no touching.

 

[txmxer]

I know it was stated above me, but the rule is
If part of a thrown disc clearly enters into a restricted space, the player receives one penalty throw. The lie for the next throw is the drop zone for that mandatory. If no drop zone has been designated, the lie for the next throw is the previous lie.

So any part counts as breaking. There is no touching.

that's the rewrite, which I had not seen until this morning.

 

[BillFleming]

Where you there when Hammes teed off on R3? It was hard to tell that he cleared the mando from the video.

It was surprising to me how much difficulty the lead card had with that mando. Maybe being the first hole of the round made it more difficult.

I'm sure that first hole "jitters" and a triple mando close to the tee pad caused a lot of misses (and the course rule that missing that mando was a re-tee....so you would be looking at trying the exact same issue, but this time knowing you already missed it once)...but I think the issue was mostly the wind we had. It tended to lift discs as they approached the mando. I saw more than one where it was definitely going under the cross rope and the wind lifted it up and over. One player went to a knee to throw. Another issue is the tree branches right behind the mando creates a smaller opening. Several players made the mando only for the disc to be knocked down by a branch.

((reason for the triple mando during the tournament is to keep discs off the back patio of Duke's to the right and not hit players in hole 2's fairway. ))

 

[txmxer]

Where you there when Hammes teed off on R3? It was hard to tell that he cleared the mando from the video.

It was surprising to me how much difficulty the lead card had with that mando. Maybe being the first hole of the round made it more difficult.

My mistake. Hammes laced it on hole R3#1. I must be thinking of another hole--I'll see if I can find the one that I thought was questionable.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not sure I read what happens when the disc deflects off of the mando object on the restricted space side of it and doesn't land on or cross the restricted space. It would seem that any contact with the mando object on that side, coming from either direction, would automatically be considered contact with the restricted space and result in a penalty plus move to the drop zone?

 

[krupicka]

I'm not sure I read what happens when the disc deflects off of the mando object on the restricted space side of it and doesn't land on or cross the restricted space. It would seem that any contact with the mando object on that side, coming from either direction, would automatically be considered contact with the restricted space and result in a penalty plus move to the drop zone?

That is why the rule is written as enters into. Bouncing off object marking the mando does not itself miss the mandatory.

 

[BillFleming]

I'm not sure I read what happens when the disc deflects off of the mando object on the restricted space side of it and doesn't land on or cross the restricted space. It would seem that any contact with the mando object on that side, coming from either direction, would automatically be considered contact with the restricted space and result in a penalty plus move to the drop zone?

As I've been taught, it's not about the mando.....it's about the restricted space. You can hit the mando wherever you want....just as long as the disc doesn't cross or touch the line identifying the restricted area.

There is a defining line from the mando that indicates the restricted area. We provided painted lines at the Memorial so there would be less confusion, but if no line is provided, then it would be a line from the center of the mando object. Hitting a mando on the "wrong" side would only be a violation/penalty if it crossed or landed on the line of the restricted area. So, a tree 1 foot wide and a tree 10 feet wide have the same restricted area...a line from the center of the tree (unless it is painted/marked elsewhere). The disc could hit the "wrong" side and still not cross or land on the line - especially on the 10 foot wide tree.

 

[Cgkdisc]

As I've been taught, it's not about the mando.....it's about the restricted space. You can hit the mando wherever you want....just as long as the disc doesn't cross or touch the line identifying the restricted area.

There is a defining line from the mando that indicates the restricted area. We provided painted lines at the Memorial so there would be less confusion, but if no line is provided, then it would be a line from the center of the mando object. Hitting a mando on the "wrong" side would only be a violation/penalty if it crossed or landed on the line of the restricted area. So, a tree 1 foot wide and a tree 10 feet wide have the same restricted area...a line from the center of the tree (unless it is painted/marked elsewhere). The disc could hit the "wrong" side and still not cross or land on the line - especially on the 10 foot wide tree.

I think if you look closer at the diameter of say a flag pole and disc, you would see angles of contact with the flagpole where the disc had penetrated the restricted space. Even larger diameter mandos have positions on their radius where part of a disc contacting it, especially with the appropriate spin, will have crossed the restricted space and the disc will land back safe on the side it originated.

Now if the rules or Q&A explicitly say that contact with the mando does not indicate restricted space penetration, as long as the disc lands safe, then that would clarify this tough-to-determine call, especially from a distance.

 

[Steve West]

This would simplify the rule in regards to the question at hand...but, from page 1:

The point I was trying to make with that post was that "making a crack" was either: 1. not leaving a hole in the glass, or 2. that it was not clear. The original confusion stemmed from whether "completely through" means the whole disc went through, or part of the disc went all the way through. My post repeated that confusion.

Now the rules are clear it means part of the disc went through.