Mandos Gone Wild

[JoakimBL]

It seems to me that the latest revision is contradicting it self.

804.02 Prohibited Routes
A. A throw has missed a mandatory if, from the direction of the previous lie, it completely crosses a mandatory line and comes to rest without coming back across the line (a throw or sequence of throws that crosses the line in both directions is considered not to have crossed the line).
B. A player who makes a throw that misses a mandatory receives one penalty throw. The lie for the next throw is the drop zone for that mandatory or, if no drop zone has been designated, the previous lie.

B states that if you have a throw that misses the mandatory, you get a penalty, but A says that you haven't missed the mandatory if you just cross the line again going the opposite way in a sequence of throws. So apparently you are now allowed to "rewind"? But the line is crossed in reference to the previous lie, how does that allow for a "sequence of throws"? What lie is the previous lie in a sequence?

And also, the basket has to be on the "correct" side of the line, so no horseshoes/U-shaped holes, or doglegs greater that 90 degrees. (Unless the mandatory line is marked and takes this into account)

 

[kenjiac]

It seems to me that the latest revision is contradicting it self.

804.02 Prohibited Routes
A. A throw has missed a mandatory if, from the direction of the previous lie, it completely crosses a mandatory line and comes to rest without coming back across the line (a throw or sequence of throws that crosses the line in both directions is considered not to have crossed the line).
B. A player who makes a throw that misses a mandatory receives one penalty throw. The lie for the next throw is the drop zone for that mandatory or, if no drop zone has been designated, the previous lie.

B states that if you have a throw that misses the mandatory, you get a penalty, but A says that you haven't missed the mandatory if you just cross the line again going the opposite way in a sequence of throws. So apparently you are now allowed to "rewind"? But the line is crossed in reference to the previous lie, how does that allow for a "sequence of throws"? What lie is the previous lie in a sequence?

And also, the basket has to be on the "correct" side of the line, so no horseshoes/U-shaped holes, or doglegs greater that 90 degrees. (Unless the mandatory line is marked and takes this into account)

Look at the previous pictures in this thread. If you have a shot that passes the correct side of the mando and then crosses the mando line your are ok to throw back across that mando line on your next shot. This is the sequence of throws that is referring to. You can't rewind. The pictures in the Q&A do a much better job of showing you what is allowed and what is not.

 

[JoakimBL]

Look at the previous pictures in this thread. If you have a shot that passes the correct side of the mando and then crosses the mando line your are ok to throw back across that mando line on your next shot. This is the sequence of throws that is referring to. You can't rewind. The pictures in the Q&A do a much better job of showing you what is allowed and what is not.

But that is not what the rules say. I have seen the pictures, and I understand what the Q&A says, but the Q&A is not dealing with every single scenario. The rule clearly says that if a sequene of shots passes the mando line in both directions, the mando has not been missed. Obviously that is not the intention of the rule, but that is what it currently says, but the goes on to contradict it self in the next passage.

 

[Steve West]

But that is not what the rules say. I have seen the pictures, and I understand what the Q&A says, but the Q&A is not dealing with every single scenario. The rule clearly says that if a sequene of shots passes the mando line in both directions, the mando has not been missed. Obviously that is not the intention of the rule, but that is what it currently says, but the goes on to contradict it self in the next passage.

When you get the penalty, your next throw is from the drop zone for the mando (or re-throw from the lie for the throw that missed the mando).

So you don't have the opportunity to unwind.

 

[cheesethin]

But that is not what the rules say. I have seen the pictures, and I understand what the Q&A says, but the Q&A is not dealing with every single scenario. The rule clearly says that if a sequene of shots passes the mando line in both directions, the mando has not been missed. Obviously that is not the intention of the rule, but that is what it currently says, but the goes on to contradict it self in the next passage.

Yeah I find 804.02.B confusing, it is not clear, but it can be made to be non-contradictory if you think of it like this:

If your first throw crosses the line in the BAD direction (from the lie) and comes to rest, then you have instantly fallen foul of the first part of 804.02.B (in bold below). Go straight to jail, do not pass go (I'm quoting TodL here). You never get to attempt a 'sequence' of throws as your next lie is relocated by rule to the DZ. So the 'sequence of throws' clause can't be put into effect.

B. A throw has missed a mandatory if, from the direction of the tee previous lie, it completely crosses a mandatory line and comes to rest without coming back across the line (a throw or sequence of throws that crosses the line in both directions is considered not to have crossed the line).

However if your first throw crosses the line in the GOOD direction (opp. side from the lie, ie a cut roll or richochet). Then that throw has not missed the mando, and it can then be considered the first throw in a 'sequence of throws', if your second throw crosses back over the mando line.

TL-DR
A sequence of throws can't start by crossing in the bad direction. It can only start by crossing in the good direction.

 

[JoakimBL]

I agree that that is a valid interpretation, and I'm not arguing that it isn't the intended interpretation. I'm just trying to show that the wording is very bad and open for other interpretations, such that rewinding is allowed. Since your description of what constitutes a valid sequence of throws is not described in the rules nor the Q&A.

Another problem is the definition of crossing the mando line in relation to the previous lie. Should you now receive a penalty from crossing the mando line from the back side? If your first throw makes the mando and ends in a bush, your second throw is a pitch out, now your third throw crosses the mando on the bad side, but going the "wrong way" (as in towards the tee). According to the rules, you have now missed the mando, because the mando is not in relation to the tee, but the previous lie, which was in the bush. And according to cheesethins explanation/interpretation, that cannot be the first throw in a sequence of throws.

 

[krupicka]

The RC knows the mando rule needs help. Unfortunately due to timelines, I'm not sure it's going to get fixed in the next rules update.

 

[kenjiac]

I agree that that is a valid interpretation, and I'm not arguing that it isn't the intended interpretation. I'm just trying to show that the wording is very bad and open for other interpretations, such that rewinding is allowed. Since your description of what constitutes a valid sequence of throws is not described in the rules nor the Q&A.

Another problem is the definition of crossing the mando line in relation to the previous lie. Should you now receive a penalty from crossing the mando line from the back side? If your first throw makes the mando and ends in a bush, your second throw is a pitch out, now your third throw crosses the mando on the bad side, but going the "wrong way" (as in towards the tee). According to the rules, you have now missed the mando, because the mando is not in relation to the tee, but the previous lie, which was in the bush. And according to cheesethins explanation/interpretation, that cannot be the first throw in a sequence of throws.

The pictures in the QandA make it pretty clear what is allowed and what isn't IMHO.

I don't think this 3rd throw has missed the mando. That situation is like the 2 shot situations in the QandA pics with a lie in between the 1st and 2nd shots. Following the string analogy this has made the mando.

 

[cheesethin]

...I don't think this 3rd throw has missed the mando. That situation is like the 2 shot situations in the QandA pics with a lie in between the 1st and 2nd shots. Following the string analogy this has made the mando.

Since the 2019 update missing the mando is now defined relative to the lie and not the Tee. So yes, the third throw would be deemed to have missed.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk