2018 Waco Annual Charity Open DGPT

[Cgkdisc]

Something else on the Waco event, not sure how many were familiar with the new procedure for determining final scores when rounds must be shortened due to weather. The Competition Committee decided to define specific numbers of holes for where scores would be counted at 9 and 13. Rather than use the number of holes actually played when the round was called, it seemed more fair to have some specific numbers of holes benchmarks so players would know in advance what holes scores would be counted in the event a round was called and not restarted.

If you let the TD determine how many holes would be counted based on when they called the round it puts too much pressure on them when knowing the scores and the potential for being seen as favoring one player over another. With 9 and 13, there are two fixed rollback points regardless when the TD calls it. The reason for the 13 break is that's the minimum number of holes that must be played to get ratings for that round.

 

[ToddL]

 

[Steve West]

Now that the term Prohibited Route is being used pertaining to Mandatories, it would seem that where Line of Play is first defined in 802.05 Lie (section) D, you might enhance it with (new text in red),

"The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc. The line of play does not pass through a prohibited route. It is redirected toward the closest point where the prohibited route and legal route meet. This is typically toward the closest mandatory object."

That would be another way to do it, but it's better to be in the section people will be reading when they encounter the situation. We shouldn't gunk up the definition of line of play for 99.9% of throws, with all that stuff about an exception.

You'd also need to define legal route, which is very hard because everything except crossing the mando line is legal, so there are infinite legal routes - some of us may even make more than one more throw to get beyond the mando.

Here's another alternative: the line of play could just always be toward the target, mandos be damned. Why all this effort to get the 20x30 rectangle slide around to a different side of the marker in some situations?

 

[brutalbrutus]

CCDG and DGPT FPO vids are starting to pop up...

 

[DanJon]

I've been playing long enough that I get it when advanced or intermediate level players get rules wrong based on what they have heard rather than read.

What bothers is the top guys in the sport, who make a living at it and represent a sponsor/s, and yet they don't understand the rules.

It's fine to not understand a specific rule.

I get it, they can be worded strangely.

But maybe im wrong to think that if its your job and you don't fully understand a rule, then its your responsibility to seek clarification.

It's not like a top Pro can't find a way to get a rule clarification, from I don't know the actual committee?

Isn't there also an actual Tour Manager from the PDGA onsite for these big tournaments?

So when I said abusing the rule in Jerm's case, I dont mean outright cheating, but it is ultimately him taking advantage of his own willful ignorance to get a better shot.

 

[BrotherDave]

Going back at least 28 years, the rule has been the same. It was explained to you wrong. Reading all the old rule books, the wording was SOOOOOO much simpler back then. Which just makes it odder that the rule has seemingly been misunderstood/misinterpreted by people who date back to those older versions of the rule. Can't really blame confusing wording back then.

Wording of rule in 1990 edition:

803.11 Mandatory Doglegs
C. When marking the lie, if an imaginary straight line from the lie to the hole does not pass to the correct side of the dogleg, then the dogleg object shall be considered to be the hole for the application of all stance, and marker rules.​

1997 edition:

803.11
C. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory shall be considered the hole for the application of all stance, mini marker, obstacle, and relief rules.​

2002 edition:

803.11
D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to 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.​

2006 edition:

803.12
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.​

2011 edition:

803.12
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.​

2013 edition:

804.02
F. The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory.​

2020 Edition:
F. Yea, all ye who passeth thine objects of mandation, and beith pureth in heart, in blasphemous manner profaning the way of the righteous, shall maketh a sacrifice of a beast, cloven and virginal, to the altar of Headrick the Steady. Verily, upon thou sacrifice and repentance, thou shalt proceedeth to reconcile with the One true way of righteousness, blessed be thy trajectory, by the marking of thine lie in congruence with thou object of mandation most incongruous with the way of the righteous.

No, a double or triple mando is not one object. It is two or three objects being used in conjunction.

The exact wording of the rule:

804.02
D. The nearest mandatory whose mandatory line is crossed by the line between the lie and the target is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, with one exception: 806.01 Putting Area.​

The term "mandatory" refers to the object. So in terms of a double mando, there are two objects and two mandatory lines, one for each object. So if you are off to the left of the double mando, you would line up with the object on the left side as it would be the nearest to your position. If you are off to the right, you'd line up with the object on the right.

Ah, it is a triune mandatory. I agree.

Common sense? Yeah, I'm super dense. Rude much?

Don't worry, I've already got my lawyers sending a cease and desist to him for being rude. That's my IP. :|

 

[tampora]

No, the spectator didn't actually interfere, but if they had not been there the disc Nate threw had a good chance to enter back in-bounds.

What definition of interference are you using if changing the movement of the disc in flight doesn't qualify?

If you don't want to hit a spectator, then don't throw into the gallery.

This makes no sense.

It's painfully obvious that no one attempted to throw the disc into the gallery. Out of bounds is an area of ground, not volume of airspace. All that matters is where the disc ends up, not the route it took to get there (mandos notwithstanding). If a player flies above OB land, why should he be denied the chance land in bounds?

It reminds me of a buddy of mine who, when asked if the groups should use a spotter for any hole, would always reply with, "Just throw it where you won't lose it".

 

[tampora]

This was no fault of the spectator and you cannot say that the disc probably would have came back in bounds because you don't know that.

Could we at least say the line of spectators was (once again) too near the throwing area?

Using the power of hindsight, the spectators could have been moved to a safe distance beforehand by Nate, the TD, or even Jerm, if anyone thought amazing skips off of the road were in the 'realm of possibility' for this hole.

 

[slowplastic]

The same crowd of people was present for both of their shots. They weren't playing against additional cards that had different conditions. One of them threw into the people that were present, the other did not throw into the people that were present.

 

[discgolfer25]

The hole in question has some safety issues in general IMO. I saw multiple people almost get hit with drives on this hole all weekend long. It's by the most common walking path to tournament central and an errant throw could also hit a spectator or player on the fairway of 6 (tournament hole 18) pretty easily. I, myself, was watching hole 18 (course hole 6) and almost got hit by not one, but two tee shots from a group...

 

[Flick Maniac]

BrotherDave, I am in tears laughing... Where can I sign up for this religion? Must I sacrifice a disc to get anointed?

 

[da Crippler]

What bothers is the top guys in the sport, who make a living at it and represent a sponsor/s, and yet they don't understand the rules.

IMVHO he understood the rule. What disturbs me is that the card agreed.

 

[biscoe]

The same crowd of people was present for both of their shots. They weren't playing against additional cards that had different conditions. One of them threw into the people that were present, the other did not throw into the people that were present.

this.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Tried flipping thru the podcast to see if they talked about Mandogate at all. I don't know what it is but the SB podcast just doesn't jive with my computer/signal. Even watching it afterwards, its still choppy as hell. It really annoys me because I enjoy listening to them...

 

[robdeforge]

Tried flipping thru the podcast to see if they talked about Mandogate at all. I don't know what it is but the SB podcast just doesn't jive with my computer/signal. Even watching it afterwards, its still choppy as hell. It really annoys me because I enjoy listening to them...

it doesn't appear as if anybody involved with the podcast knew that this discussion was going on. check out the thread ingeneral

 

[brutalbrutus]

it doesn't appear as if anybody involved with the podcast knew that this discussion was going on. check out the thread ingeneral

That is a different podcast... I was referring to the Smashboxx podcast, the one you linked is JamieT from SpinTV.

 

[JC17393]

Tried flipping thru the podcast to see if they talked about Mandogate at all. I don't know what it is but the SB podcast just doesn't jive with my computer/signal. Even watching it afterwards, its still choppy as hell. It really annoys me because I enjoy listening to them...

They did address it, somewhat briefly. Unfortunately the archive on youtube cuts off the first hour and a half of the show (the audio version I received this morning through Patreon is 3 hours and 18 minutes...video archive is only two hours) for some reason and the discussion itself isn't there.

Jerm copped to having the rule wrong, innocent error, etc. The only thing he said that bothered me a bit is he insisted that even though he was attempting to hit the lie based on the mando on his run-up, he did manage to hit the lie lined up with the basket anyway. Not so sure I agree with him there, but it's ultimately inconsequential.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

It is hard for me to believe he would be audacious enough to knowingly misrepresent the rule while on live feed and double down by bringing it up on the post-production video. If he had done it on purpose, I think he would have made no mention of it on Jomez.

 

[pearlybakerbest]

The only thing he said that bothered me a bit is he insisted that even though he was attempting to hit the lie based on the mando on his run-up, he did manage to hit the lie lined up with the basket anyway. Not so sure I agree with him there, but it's ultimately inconsequential.

With the new rule it is reasonable to believe that he may have had a couple toes on the imaginary rectangle behind the marker in the correct LOP. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's all one needs to be legal right, a piece of your foot in the rectangle?

 

[robdeforge]

That is a different podcast... I was referring to the Smashboxx podcast, the one you linked is JamieT from SpinTV.

ahh gotcha. whoops :doh:

Jerm copped to having the rule wrong, innocent error, etc. The only thing he said that bothered me a bit is he insisted that even though he was attempting to hit the lie based on the mando on his run-up, he did manage to hit the lie lined up with the basket anyway. Not so sure I agree with him there, but it's ultimately inconsequential.

Yea, judging from the picture you shared earlier in the thread, I don't see how that's the case. But as you say it's inconsequential. I'm kinda bummed he brought it up at all - off to listen to the podcast!