2013 Rules Changes

[JR]

I would imagine self castration by putting would attract more viewers in the extreme and feminist crowds

 

[JHern]

With no falling putt rule the "run and jump" putts would be entertaining as heck...

I said get rid of falling putts, I think you misinterpreted it. It would be the same rules as any other throw from any other location (except the tee). I.e., the disc must still be released prior to the supporting point (immediately behind the lie) coming off the ground. The only reason jump putts are helpful outside the circle is the added power they give to reach a further target, but you don't need added power inside the circle. Removing the 10m circle wouldn't have very much impact on the game, but would dramatically simplify the rules.

You know players with speed, hang time and perhaps intoxication would try to jump over the basket and dunk it between their legs as they sailed by...

This would be illegal, just like throwing an upshot like this from greater than 10m is already illegal.

 

[PMantle1]

Wow :lol:

 

[Cgkdisc]

The problem is the deadfall putt would then be allowed where the tall player just falls toward the basket from say 8 feet away, reaches out and slam dunks the putt while still keeping their stance behind the marker before face planting on the ground.

 

[andrewv]

I also think we should get rid of the 10m circle and allow falling putts. That will cut out a lot of complicated rules.

There is one simple rule to cover falling putts: 802.04D. You'd have to have severe learning disability to find that complicated.

American sports (American football, basketball, baseball) seem to be obsessed with tweaking the rules. I don't know what the paranoia is with that.

 

[mark12b]

The problem is the deadfall putt would then be allowed where the tall player just falls toward the basket from say 8 feet away, reaches out and slam dunks the putt while still keeping their stance behind the marker before face planting on the ground.

I for one would have no problem competing against a player who putted that way. I don't see it as an advantage for the taller players. Certainly no more than the advantages they have now (more options to throw over bushes, etc.).

 

[JimW]

Okay, so I borrowed an image from Chuck's link of Mando explanations and Photoshopped it to create four confusing scenarios. Goal was to help so hopefully I didn't make a mess of it. Please verify for me that all four are accurate:

I don't think the bottom shot in the picture is correct. Because the disc hit a tree and bounced back behind the missed line it needs to pass to the correct side of the mando again on its way to the basket. That seems to be the main point of this change, there is no longer any such thing as "making the mando". You always have to pass to the correct side of the mando no matter what happened on any previous shot.

The easiest way to put it I think is that any shot that ever goes over the "missed line" is invalid, period.

 

[Cgkdisc]

While it might make sense, it's not the way the rule is currently written. The bottom route is currently legal.

 

[PMantle1]

I don't think the bottom shot in the picture is correct. Because the disc hit a tree and bounced back behind the missed line it needs to pass to the correct side of the mando again on its way to the basket. That seems to be the main point of this change, there is no longer any such thing as "making the mando". You always have to pass to the correct side of the mando no matter what happened on any previous shot.

The easiest way to put it I think is that any shot that ever goes over the "missed line" is invalid, period.

This doesn't make sense to me. The disc passed the tree on the correct side, and never came back across the line in a way for the player to miss the mando. It's clearly correct with no ambiguity at all.

 

[TobbeF]

There's no requirement that the direction of the line on one side of the mando be the same as the other side 804.02A(1). While it's normally straight through (default position), there are reasons why the designer/TD might have the Missed Mando line angle differently from the Made Mando line (and as noted, this line isn't really needed.) So when the 804.02B refers to missing on the incorrect side, it's only referencing the line on the Missed side when indicating AND staying beyond that line. We agree that there are two lines involved that may be in the same direction but are differentiated by calling one the Missed side and the other the Made side. I agree the RC could have made it more clear if they used the word "that" instead of "the" as the 3rd last word of 804.02B.

Thanks for the reply. So you are saying that in the pic below the green disc has established a position completely beyond the [missed] mandatory line? I think that is somewhat of a stretch (since the green disc is closer to the tee than the missed mandatory line is).
(I borrowed Andrew´s pic which was borrowed from Chuck too, added "a line connecting the lies for the hole" for the orange disc in purple and somewhat sloppily removed 2 disc paths for clarity.)

While it might make sense, it's not the way the rule is currently written. The bottom route is currently legal.

804.02E speaks of a line connecting the lies, not a line consisting of the flight paths. It is pretty clear from the picture that the purple line connecting the lies for the orange disc does not pass to the correct sides of all mandatories for the hole. Therefore, the way the rule is currently written, the bottom route is not legal.

 

[andrewv]

I just want to pop in to state TobbeF's gripe was intentionally built-in (by me) to the orange disc's throw...:twisted:

 

[Cgkdisc]

I already called the RC on this issue when I wrote the Rules School mando update. They agree the rule should have said the continuous line connecting the "flight paths" not "lies" all had to be around the Made side of the Mando. Thus the reason for writing what I did in the mando rule update. Even then there's an issue when considering my drawing if we think what would happen if my Throw 2 ended up in the same location as shown but it got there by curling around the Missed mando side instead of the Made mando side. Per the rules, the direct shot at the basket on the line with the X in it would be an option.

In the long run, I've suggested a way to handle mandos that I think solves this. There would only be one mando line on the Missed side only. If your disc ever crosses the Mando line just once on a throw from either direction, you go to the drop zone. Many times the reason for a mando is to keep people away from an area. So getting them away from that area by moving them to the drop zone regardless if they cross the line from the tee side or basket side seems to make sense.

 

[PMantle1]

Odd # of shadows on the good side of the tree are good. Even number of shadows on the good side are bad. Any shadow on the bad side is bad. :mrgreen:

 

[Vegan Ray]

Odd # of shadows on the good side of the tree are good. Even number of shadows on the good side are bad. Any shadow on the bad side is bad. :mrgreen:

That is, assuming a perfect high-noon sun.

 

[JoakimBL]

2 meter rule has been optional since 2006. They just added a category called Discretionary Rules to organize the rules better. The important change is if your disc has been seen by the group to come to rest in the tree, your mark is under that spot on the ground regardless if it drops out of the tree before you get to it. If the 2m rule is in effect that means you'll get the penalty even if it drops before you get there.

I don't want to spoil the debate on Mandos, but if the above quote is correct, I think there is an error in the updated Officials Exam.

Question 9: Disc Falls Before Arriving

A competitor's tee shot lands 20 feet up in a tree that is fully in bounds. As he is promptly walking to the tree, the disc falls to the ground. However, at least four minutes have elapsed since the disc came to rest in the tree. What is the ruling?

A) One throw penalty, 2-meter rule violation since that is where the disc came to rest.
B) Play the disc from where it lies, no penalty.
C) Play the disc from where it lies, but with a one throw penalty since the disc was up in the tree longer than the allowed 3 minute search time.
D) Play the disc from a point directly underneath the tree, where the disc originally came to rest, no penalty.
E) Re-tee, add one penalty throw.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Under new rules, answer should be D. Pre-2013 rules, then answer B correct.

 

[JoakimBL]

How does that fit with what you wrote in the message I quoted? Why no penalty?

If the 2m rule is in effect that means you'll get the penalty even if it drops before you get there.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's no blanket 2m penalty any more, only if indicated by the TD. In the question, it didn't say the 2m penalty was active. So there would be no penalty involved in the answer to that question.

 

[JHern]

It's a poorly written question, whenever such an issue is posed the group will be armed with knowledge regarding whether or not the 2m rule is in effect, which makes it simple to answer. I would argue that insufficient information is supplied to allow for any confident answer.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The question was written related to the previous rule where the disc wasn't considered at rest until the player arrived at its location. In that case, it didn't matter whether the 2m rule was in effect or not. Now, the question relies on players knowing the default is no 2m rule thus making the question a little trickier in a different way than the original intention of the question.