Hitting the mando tree

[biscoe]

Given that the plane is specifically said to need to be marked by objects, it's a little weird not to have some sort of details of what constitutes this plane once you've said it's marked by "objects". That said, the leading edge is something of an issue, and it's because of the OP question. Essentially it means that everything that strikes the mando is a miss, because unless you kick 90 degrees to the plane, or the leading edge is itself a flat surface on the plane, you will have needed to move past the plane to strike the object. Again, this fails to match the intuitive understanding of the rule. Since many mandos are essentially round, the advantage of the plane going through the center is that objects that strike the mando and kick back away from the plane can be assumed to have not broken the plane.

In conjunction with using the leading edge of the object i would add that the object itself is not part of the restricted area.

Second, mandos never prevent people from throwing from an area. You can always reach any spot while you have not missed the mando. They don't even prevent any flight paths once you have made the mando. Make the left mando and then kick way right? You may be throwing the exact flight path someone would have off the tee if there was no mando.

I do believe that if you get a kick such that it takes you back behind the plane you should still have to make (re-make?) the mando on the subsequent shot.

I'd considered suggesting that once you make the mando it shouldn't matter what happens after that. A mando could only apply the first time you cross the plane. The problem with that would be that it would create confusion because it wouldn't be apparent on any given shot whether the mando applied, you'd have to know the history of throws on the hole. That seems like a recipe for arguments and incorrect calls.

That would eliminate a portion of the ostensible purpose of many mandos which is to prevent throwing through a particular area. Maybe we need a way to distinguish between mandos which exist for that purpose and those which merely exist to force a given line.

 

[Rastnav]

In conjunction with using the leading edge of the object i would add that the object itself is not part of the restricted area.

I don't think this makes sense. If the leading edge of the object (really a vertical line) is on the plane that cannot be broken on the wrong side of the mando, anything that doesn't hit exactly on that line necessarily has crossed through the plane before hitting the mando object. You don't want to make some special undefined bubble of safety around the mando object. It will just end up in confusion and weird rulings.

I do believe that if you get a kick such that it takes you back behind the plane you should still have to make (re-make?) the mando on the subsequent shot.

I'm not talking about a shot that makes the mando and kicks back behind the plane. I'm talking about a shot that makes the mando, then hits something and kicks back towards the plane on the wrong side of the mando, but stays on the "good" side of the plane. The shot thrown from that spot doesn't have to cross the plane, doesn't have to make the mando again, and can legally go through the air space the designer wanted to prevent people from throwing through.

That would eliminate a portion of the ostensible purpose of many mandos which is to prevent throwing through a particular area. Maybe we need a way to distinguish between mandos which exist for that purpose and those which merely exist to force a given line.

Again, they can't do this. They can only encourage a different choice of intended flight path. Even then, discs will be able to legally fly through air space the designer was trying to avoid. But, as I said, I don't think a "first shot" mando actually makes much sense, simply because it would be too likely to cause confusion.

 

[txmxer]

In conjunction with using the leading edge of the object i would add that the object itself is not part of the restricted area.



I.

Then you get in to the branches issue—graphic example given earlier.

 

[araytx]

Nice ageist and sexist term there. (NEWS FLASH: females and juniors aren't men.) Or are they exempt from "man don'ts"?

I guess you didn't get it. It wasn't man in the "adult male person" sense. Seriously???

:wall::wall:

 

[araytx]

I went back and read the earlier posts, pretty good discussion starting with the OP and the first page. We are kind of rehashing it--shocking I know.

Part of the debate goes back to the KISS principle and the follow up of "keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Seems like the RC TRIED to keep it simple, but made it more complex, but then backed away from addressing the issues created by the additional details (i.e., defining the default for the mando plane).

good intentions, little off on execution.

OH, I'm gonna disagree. It is simple. If you touch the restricted space (no need for questions of when/how/direction/etc.), then it is a miss. It's literally that simple with the new rule.

The "confusion"/"dislike"/"counter-intuitive" comes from players and their belief that it shouldn't be that way.

Rastnav is telling me (repeatedly) basically "let's focus on intent and not the wordiness of a rule". Which I'd love and is fine and dandy -- until you have to put all of that into rule book words and deal with real players interpreting those real words in a real competition that they are serious about. SO that's what the RC addressed. Granted, some people just don't like it. (AND amongst the "don't like it crowd" I'm counting those who say "it doesn't make sense.")

BUT SIMPLER - yes it absolutely is. It's basically that one phrase above -- that's all you have to know. Unfortunately current players are clouded by their prior knowledge.


NOW I am not defending the current rule, saying it is better for current play, or anything like that. Personally, I'd like a shot at the RC because I believe that if we chose to use video and rules interps to go with the written rules, we COULD get the entire rulebook more focused on intent. But I've been a part of rule-writing in sports and it IS NOT as easy as most claim to make a written rule that covers most scenarios and meets the intent. it just isn't. I'm only giving the RC credit for what they said it was supposed to be. And we will should. You may not like it, but the rule does what they said it was going to do.

 

[txmxer]

OH, I'm gonna disagree. It is simple. If you touch the restricted space (no need for questions of when/how/direction/etc.), then it is a miss. It's literally that simple with the new rule.

The "confusion"/"dislike"/"counter-intuitive" comes from players and their belief that it shouldn't be that way.

Rastnav is telling me (repeatedly) basically "let's focus on intent and not the wordiness of a rule". Which I'd love and is fine and dandy -- until you have to put all of that into rule book words and deal with real players interpreting those real words in a real competition that they are serious about. SO that's what the RC addressed. Granted, some people just don't like it. (AND amongst the "don't like it crowd" I'm counting those who say "it doesn't make sense.")

BUT SIMPLER - yes it absolutely is. It's basically that one phrase above -- that's all you have to know. Unfortunately current players are clouded by their prior knowledge.


NOW I am not defending the current rule, saying it is better for current play, or anything like that. Personally, I'd like a shot at the RC because I believe that if we chose to use video and rules interps to go with the written rules, we COULD get the entire rulebook more focused on intent. But I've been a part of rule-writing in sports and it IS NOT as easy as most claim to make a written rule that covers most scenarios and meets the intent. it just isn't. I'm only giving the RC credit for what they said it was supposed to be. And we will should. You may not like it, but the rule does what they said it was going to do.

You remember when you wrote this...

Well, I obviously agree with all of that, especially the key point that "it depends" how the TD had defined the mando. But there has to be a default, in case a TD is ambiguous or not clear enough. And based upon that, I made my decision as if it were a vertical plane up & down from the point of the mando arrow — because that's all I had to go on. Otherwise, it's always gonna be "we don't have enough information."

But good comment.

And then Steve stated this:

Ask the TD. There is no default, they have to define it.

Are you sure you want to disagree with my statement?

The position I'm stating above is the RC attempted to simplify the rule--maybe it is more simple now, I'd have to review the earlier iteration to comment.

But what wasn't done was establishing some type of default (i.e., the thing you said exists and Steve said doesn't).

 

[Rastnav]

Rastnav is telling me (repeatedly) basically "let's focus on intent and not the wordiness of a rule".

I don't think you have understood me, correctly. What I am saying (repeatedly) is that the words of the rule should result in the intent of the rule being met. If the words result in changing the meaning from the original intent, especially in an unintuitive manner, it is undesirable. Rules which are too complex, or are hard to understand, whether it is from them being too wordy, or for some other reason, are also undesirable.

I don't believe that the written rule resulting from the concept I suggested would be wordy, nor difficult to apply to all situations. But I suppose that's on me to prove. If anyone is actually interested I'd propose actual language for people to shoot at.

 

[Ahildy13]

Maybe. But on a true "double mandatory" or "triple mandatory" (clown's mouth) the marking is a non-issue. The missed mandatory plane begins and extends along the same line as the line connecting the two mandatory objects, assuming, of course a TD has not defined it differently. Now I am talking about true double (must pass between) or triple (between and below) mandatories not the sometimes referred to as but not really, successive mandatories in opposite directions (see attached).




The problem Rastnav, is that it's not as "intuitive" in real life and as simplistic as you imply here. Sure you want a focus on the made mando so that basically "any disc seen flying in the proper direction in relation to the mandatory definition will be ruled a make." And that will work fine as long as discs don't cut roll, ricochet off of another object, somehow fly backwards by wind or other force without hitting anything, etc. And since we know that discs DO have those occurrences the old rule required all kinds of interpretations based upon where the disc began and where it ended up IN ADDITION to the basic scenario you imply would be the simple one.

I, myself had a recent roller throw in a tourney that was a missed man-dont by the current rule, was neither a miss nor made mando by the old rule, and would have been a disputed long conversation by the mando rule you propose here. With a stay left mandatory (See 2nd attachment) my roller just barely when right of the mando tree, hit another root or stump and rolled back short of the mando to the correct side? And the old rule had so many scenarios like that.

I get that you want "fly on the correct side = make" and "fly on the wrong side = miss" but in your scenario a player can still "make" the mando and, with an unusual bounce or ricochet, be left with a throw that the designer was trying to eliminate. That's the problem.

And disc golf goals (targets) aren't perfect like those in other sports ... yet you want the mando rule to be that -- hard for me to jive the two.




It's really not "enter." If the thrown disc touches the space, even tangentially, it is a miss. That is what the RC was trying to do -- eliminate those discussions. If it touches the restricted space it is a miss, period. I get that people don't like it, but THAT truly is simpler and clearer than anything we've had before.

Your drawing 2 is wrong, since you drew top down your mando should be a point. If we go by the red arrow, it was not a missed mando.

 

[araytx]

I don't think you have understood me, correctly. What I am saying (repeatedly) is that the words of the rule should result in the intent of the rule being met. If the words result in changing the meaning from the original intent, especially in an unintuitive manner, it is undesirable. Rules which are too complex, or are hard to understand, whether it is from them being too wordy, or for some other reason, are also undesirable.

I don't believe that the written rule resulting from the concept I suggested would be wordy, nor difficult to apply to all situations. But I suppose that's on me to prove. If anyone is actually interested I'd propose actual language for people to shoot at.

I don't think it is as easy as you claim. So I'll issue the challenge. Don't worry. I'll likely ask questions, but I am as quick to admit when I am wrong if shown so.

Your drawing 2 is wrong, since you drew top down your mando should be a point. If we go by the red arrow, it was not a missed mando.

See what mean. All your previous knowledge is interfering with you making a decision. The current rule is (basically as I said), "if the thrown disc touches the restricted space, it is a miss." Just that simple. Clearly that roller in my 2nd drawing did.

 

[araytx]

You remember when you wrote this...



And then Steve stated this:




Are you sure you want to disagree with my statement?

The position I'm stating above is the RC attempted to simplify the rule--maybe it is more simple now, I'd have to review the earlier iteration to comment.

But what wasn't done was establishing some type of default (i.e., the thing you said exists and Steve said doesn't).

Yeah. I am still gonna disagree. The rule itself is still SIMPLER. In all those "questionable" scenarios mnetiined previously the problem is the TD, and NOT the RC's rule. If the TD does his/her/their job then the rule is as simple as I said. I WANT there to be a default to clarify for lazy & uniformed TDs. But that would be to cover TD issues, not an issue with the rule.

 

[txmxer]

Yeah. I am still gonna disagree. The rule itself is still SIMPLER. In all those "questionable" scenarios mnetiined previously the problem is the TD, and NOT the RC's rule. If the TD does his/her/their job then the rule is as simple as I said. I WANT there to be a default to clarify for lazy & uniformed TDs. But that would be to cover TD issues, not an issue with the rule.

That seems like an arbitrary choice.

The point of default is to eliminate confusion. Rules should be conclusive as a baseline even if they allow flexibility such as giving a default for the plane while allowing the TD to adjust it as deemed appropriate.

 

[araytx]

That seems like an arbitrary choice.

The point of default is to eliminate confusion. [Color = "orange"] Rules should be conclusive as a baseline even if they allow flexibility such as giving a default for the plane while allowing the TD to adjust it as deemed appropriate.[/color]

Key word -- "should" And I don't disagree with you there. Which is why I felt a baseline or default might improve the situation. But the essence of the new rule, "any thrown disc that touches the restricted space has missed the mandatory," still remains simpler than before.
Previously, we had to account for where it came from, where it came to rest, the flight pattern, AND whether or not the mandatory remains after this throw (because, as Rastnav postulates, it could disappate after a "make" under the old rule). None of that is necessary with the new rule. It is as simple as that one shorten version phrase.

 

[txmxer]

Key word -- "should" And I don't disagree with you there. Which is why I felt a baseline or default might improve the situation. But the essence of the new rule, "any thrown disc that touches the restricted space has missed the mandatory," still remains simpler than before.
Previously, we had to account for where it came from, where it came to rest, the flight pattern, AND whether or not the mandatory remains after this throw (because, as Rastnav postulates, it could disappate after a "make" under the old rule). None of that is necessary with the new rule. It is as simple as that one shorten version phrase.

The only part related to my post is the first part By failing to provide a default, the new version is incomplete.

Frequently there are debates over what a rule says/means based on a particular incident. Those scenarios are usually someone that doesn't want to accept the rule as written.

That is not the issue here. For a double or triple mando, it would be easy to provide a default.

What might be more challenging is to define a default for a single mando.

 

[krupicka]

Based on questions I have received, there were a number of mandos in use prior to 2022 where courses used the default, but under the 2018-2021 mandatory rules technically made the hole unplayable or would have allowed players to bypass the intended purpose of the mandatory all together if anyone bothered to take a moment to think about it. One by-product of getting rid of the default is course designers / tournament directors had to actually consider what they wanted.

 

[Rastnav]

Based on questions I have received, there were a number of mandos in use prior to 2022 where courses used the default, but under the 2018-2021 mandatory rules technically made the hole unplayable or would have allowed players to bypass the intended purpose of the mandatory all together if anyone bothered to take a moment to think about it. One by-product of getting rid of the default is course designers / tournament directors had to actually consider what they wanted.

I'm going go out on a limb here and say that the vast majorities of mandatories on courses that aren't specifically set up for tournament play are now unplayable for every single throw under the new rule.

Because most mandatories are single mandos (and therefore don't have a second object that would define the plane).

Yeah, theoretically the new rule means that TDs should consider this, but I have to wonder whether the average singles league (say) is doing something other than saying "There is a mandatory on hole 14". Meaning the mando that's always been on that hole that everyone already knows about. That is certainly what happened for the rounds in my singles league this spring that had mandatories. Nothing was mentioned about how the plane was defined.

That certainly doesn't mean that the new rule shouldn't have been made, but it does speak to the idea that defaults already exist, even if they are only in the players heads.

 

[Rastnav]

It's also worth pointing out that there are almost assuredly many double mandatory holes that technically can't be completed by actually going through the mandatory, as the restricted plane defined by those two objects actually passes behind the basket relative to the tee.

 

[Rastnav]

I don't think it is as easy as you claim. So I'll issue the challenge.

Alright, here is a potential wording of 804.01. See how this strikes you.

804.01 Mandatory Routes

A. A mandatory route restricts the path the disc may take to the target.

B. The mandatory route is a vertical plane defined by one or more objects which must be crossed in a specified direction. This plane is divided into a mandatory and restricted area.

B.1. Unless otherwise specified, the required direction is defined by the line from either (1) the tee to this mandatory, or (2) the previous mandatory to this mandatory.

B.2. Unless otherwise specified, a single mandatory object defines a plane which is 90 degrees to the required direction.

B.3. Unless otherwise specified, the point on the mandatory objects farthest from the tee in the specified direction defines the plane.​

C. When a throw results in any part of the disc clearly crossing the plane in the specified direction, the disc must first cross the plane through the mandatory area. If not, the mandatory has been missed.

C.1. The penalty for missing the mandatory is one penalty throw.

C.2. The lie for the next throw after a missed mandatory is the drop zone for that mandatory. If no drop zone has been designated, the lie for the next throw is the previous lie.

C.3. If the thrown disc is released on the other side of the restricted space compared to the rear edge of the marker disc, the player has missed the mandatory.
​

 

[Rastnav]

With that proposed rule, the one scenario that I have raised that I think wouldn't be covered would be the situation where, after you make a mandatory, the plane of the mandatory must then be crossed to reach the basket.

That wouldn't come into play normally, but if you get past the basket, and then miss the basket again and cross back over the plane, you would have missed the mandatory again. I think it's very hard to write the rule to cover that situation without it being very confusing, so that situation would really need to be addressed by the mandatories being defined in a sensible manner. I think that particular case would be fairly rare, but certainly not impossible.

I also don't specify order for multiple mandos on a hole. Which could be an issue.

B.3. should read "objects farthest from the (1) the tee, or (2) the previous mandatory" as in B.1.

 

[philstine]

I guess you didn't get it. It wasn't man in the "adult male person" sense. Seriously???

:wall::wall:

sar-chasm (n.) the giant gulf between the sarcastic comment and araytx's ability to detect it.

 

[txmxer]

sar-chasm (n.) the giant gulf between the sarcastic comment and araytx's ability to detect it.

Unless you are also coupe, I wouldn't be so certain it was sarcasm.