Playing backwards to correct side of a mandatory

[IHearChains]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

For the OP's question in specific, with the closest applicable rule being a correctly-used mando, I'd think the line of play, for stance purposes, would be the closest tree marking one end of the mando as you unwind. Your stance would be on the basket side of the lie.

That's what I thought too. However the question remains, would you be you allowed to step out around the mando, as long as your off foot is no closer to the mando tree? (first pic)

Or would your off foot have to be no closer to the mando line? (second pic)

As indicated by the dotted red lines, a much different flight path could be contemplated for the next shot.

[IHearChains]

Originally Posted by IHearChains

I'm not asking whether or not the TD *should* declare such a rule, that's a separate issue.

Thanks to everyone who answered that the TD should not declare such a rule.

To clarify, this rule was declared in an unsanctioned event. The guy played his second throw to the lie indicated in the pic, and then it cost him another throw because he played it like in the 2nd pic, pitched it 5 feet so he could get an angle toward the basket.

[JC17393]

Originally Posted by IHearChains

That's what I thought too. However the question remains, would you be you allowed to step out around the mando, as long as your off foot is no closer to the mando tree? (first pic)

Or would your off foot have to be no closer to the mando line? (second pic)

As indicated by the dotted red lines, a much different flight path could be contemplated for the next shot.

All rules regarding stance, line of play, etc when it comes to a mandatory have always been relative to the mandatory OBJECT. Never is it ever in reference to the mandatory line. So in your extremely hypothetical, not at all in concert with the official rules of play, situation it would be the first pic not the second.

[IHearChains]

Originally Posted by JC17393

All rules regarding stance, line of play, etc when it comes to a mandatory have always been relative to the mandatory OBJECT. Never is it ever in reference to the mandatory line. So in your extremely hypothetical, not at all in concert with the official rules of play, situation it would be the first pic not the second.

Not hypothetical. It was played like pic 2. I figured I’d get some good feedback here, thanks everybody

[ToddL]

Originally Posted by Putt for D'oh

My first thought was missed mando, declare optional relief, take the penalty stroke and move back toward the teepad as you need, to be clear of the mando... but in this case, with the mando itself as the "target" after it has been missed, I guess that would dictate the line of play and relief would be away from the mando at that point?

Yup.
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

Originally Posted by IHearChains

That's what I thought too. However the question remains, would you be you allowed to step out around the mando, as long as your off foot is no closer to the mando tree? (first pic)

Or would your off foot have to be no closer to the mando line? (second pic)

As indicated by the dotted red lines, a much different flight path could be contemplated for the next shot.

You can straddle the target as long as no supporting point is closer than the back of the disc. Picture 1 is legal (I mean, given the rest of the other stuff)

[Smigles]

Originally Posted by araytx

BUT... in the event that the rule is somehow in play in an unsanctioned event, what would prevent the player from taking his penalty stroke and then re-throwing from the previous lie (using abandoned throw), instead of the unwind thing? It would likely be more advantageous than playing like the the OP states.

Does "unsanctioned" mean no rules apply?

If we play the mando as we want, why not just walk my disc to the basket and drop it in? Yay i had 18 aces my round...

[JC17393]

Originally Posted by Smigles

Does "unsanctioned" mean no rules apply?

If we play the mando as we want, why not just walk my disc to the basket and drop it in? Yay i had 18 aces my round...

Pretty sure unsanctioned simply means not PDGA sanctioned. Therefore subject to making up their own rules with no real consequence. I've played plenty of unsanctioned where it was stated in advance that "PDGA rules in effect except...." For most, the "except" usually referred to alcohol consumption during play, but I've played some where it was the mandatory rule that was altered (typically a forced unwind rather than penalty + drop zone).

[Smigles]

Originally Posted by JC17393

Pretty sure unsanctioned simply means not PDGA sanctioned. Therefore subject to making up their own rules with no real consequence. I've played plenty of unsanctioned where it was stated in advance that "PDGA rules in effect except...." For most, the "except" usually referred to alcohol consumption during play, but I've played some where it was the mandatory rule that was altered (typically a forced unwind rather than penalty + drop zone).

I played in some unsanctioned events with a Mulligan rule, once even with a happy Mulligan.

But i liked the alcohol aspect more than the Mulligan

[araytx]

Originally Posted by Smigles

Does "unsanctioned" mean no rules apply?

If we play the mando as we want, why not just walk my disc to the basket and drop it in? Yay i had 18 aces my round...

At an "unsanctioned" event, the TD can make up his/her own rules. So yes rules apply, just not all PDGA rules. For example when Salient had the ADGT, they did not allow the optional re-throw (now called abandoned throw) rule.

I answered the original OP as if it were in accordance with PDGA rules; if the TD had chosen to do his own thing, then he could at an unsanctioned event.

[ScottyLove]

Originally Posted by ToddL

Yup.
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



You can straddle the target as long as no supporting point is closer than the back of the disc. Picture 1 is legal (I mean, given the rest of the other stuff)

I'm not following your words I guess, but I know for a fact the right foot in this picture is a violation because it's not behind the lie with respect to line of play.