Making the mando and being behind it

[roblee]

I may be misunderstanding the rule and some of the comments, but this is what I envisioned. The disc clears the mando, gets a tree kick and rolls backward on the wrong side of the mando and lays down on the mando line. It is my understanding, this is not a missed mando?

If it is not a missed mando, the player then must take a stance behind the mando line and make a throw from behind the mando line. Can the player throw the blue path, or must the next throw follow the green line?

Yes, this is just what I'm unclear about. The Lie Rectangle would put you in front of the Mando Plane. I see no mention of Relief similar to what is allowed from an OB Line.

 

[auzcar]

If you used a mini marker in this example your stance wouldn't be behind the restricted area anymore. Does that change the ruling in this case?

 

[BillFleming]

Sorry, the above is okay or is not okay?

Weird, I responded, but I don't see my response. Let me try again.

As I understand your drawing.....
1. you have a double mando that the disc must pass between.
2. The disc successfully passed between the mandos.
3. The disc then hit the ground and rolled back onto the right-side mando line.
4. The disc came to rest ON the right-side mando line.

My understanding of the rule:
The mando only exists from one side. So when the disc passed between the mandos it was good - you "made" the mando.

Now your stance is on the 'tee side' of the mando, and your backswing takes the disc through the plane of the mando. (Again, my understanding) since the mando is only in effect from the tee side to the target side, the disc is not entering the mando since the backswing is from the target side to the tee side.

But regardless....remember, the disc is ON the mando plane/line, it is not full over it, so there wouldn't be a penalty.


That said, your drawing brings up a different question....what if the disc came to rest where it is in your drawing without passing the mandos? It did not fully enter the plane, so no penalty, but now you still have to throw between the mandos...what if your backswing takes it fully through the plane of the mando?

 

[BillFleming]

Close.

The "restricted space" is a vertical plane, not an area on the ground. You're not allowed to throw your disc through the vertical plane.

On your drawing the mando was missed when the brown line first crossed the green line. Nothing after that matters. Take a penalty and go to the drop zone.

(Important note: This particular example would be a crappy way to design a mando because of the difficulty of actually seeing whether the brown line ever passed between the poles or not.)

Meant to respond to this before....it is actually easy to see if the disc passes between the poles. Like I said, it's a crappy picture, but got the main point across. The purpose of the double mando being near the OB is that the OB is a road, which curves. Before the mandos, people would throw across the road, which was a straighter shot to the target - since the disc passed OVER the OB and landed back in bounds....it was legal. So the first mando pole was put just off the front of the tee pad and the second one was put at the curve. Now players are not able to legally throw over the road.

 

[krupicka]

My understanding of the rule:
The mando only exists from one side. So when the disc passed between the mandos it was good - you "made" the mando.

Your understanding is incorrect. There is no such thing as a made mandatory. That disappeared from the rule years ago... There is also now no directionality in missing a mandatory. If you miss it from either direction, you have missed it.

 

[BillFleming]

Your understanding is incorrect. There is no such thing as a made mandatory. That disappeared from the rule years ago... There is also now no directionality in missing a mandatory. If you miss it from either direction, you have missed it.

Thanks for that information, I really thought mandos were in one direction. But now what about txmxr's question? The disc came to lie on the mando line. It has not fully entered the restricted area from either direction, so there's no penalty. But what happens when the player's reachback takes the disc entirely into the restricted area as part of their throw?

 

[BillFleming]

Adding to Txmxr's question...

In my drawing, two player (red and green) have thrown. Both discs have landed on the mando line and neither entirely entered the restricted area.

1. Which direction does each need to be thrown?
- can red throw directly towards the basket?
- does green need to still throw 'around' the mando?
2. What is the rule if either player's disc entirely enters the restricted area during their backswing?
- red, throwing towards the basket, would be behind their lie and the disc most likely would enter the restricted area.
- likewise, green still having to go around the mando pole might have their disc fully enter the restricted area as part of their throw.

 

[roblee]

Thank you MK. Your statement regarding either direction is what was needed to better understand the rule change. Can that be added? Now I still have a couple questions

804.01 C: "If a throw clearly and completely enters a restricted space, the player receives one penalty throw."

* Thinking the term "throw" could be "thrown disc".

* Does "clearly and completely enters" mean that "part" of the disc has clearly and completely broken the plane? (If the tip of an arrow penetrates out the back of a target it would be considered that "it went clear through"). i.e if the disc is merely touching the plane it would not be clearly and completely through. Or does it mean that the "entire" disc must completely pass through the plane? Either way maybe that term benefits from a definition?

I know you wanted simple but I envision a challenge trying to explain this rule in the field even with a rule book in hand.

 

[BillFleming]

Thank you MK. Your statement regarding either direction is what was needed to better understand the rule change. Can that be added? Now I still have a couple questions

804.01 C: "If a throw clearly and completely enters a restricted space, the player receives one penalty throw."

* Thinking the term "throw" could be "thrown disc".

* Does "clearly and completely enters" mean that "part" of the disc has clearly and completely broken the plane? (If the tip of an arrow penetrates out the back of a target it would be considered that "it went clear through"). i.e if the disc is merely touching the plane it would not be clearly and completely through. Or does it mean that the "entire" disc must completely pass through the plane? Either way maybe that term benefits from a definition?

I know you wanted simple but I envision a challenge trying to explain this rule in the field even with a rule book in hand.

The part about "throw" confuses me also. The throw includes the 'reachback'....maybe it needs to include the words "after release".

I'm also still confused on how if my disc passes on the correct side of a mando and then rolls back across the mando line it's now a penalty.

 

[roblee]

I'm also still confused on how if my disc passes on the correct side of a mando and then rolls back across the mando line it's now a penalty.

That part seems clear. If a disc crosses the plane any time & in any direction it is a penalty. Would have been helpful to state this in the PDGA summary but now we know thanks to Mike Krupicka's post above. This is in line with their priority to simplify the rules; no exceptions to breaking the plane. Since the mando line extends to infinity this foul could happen on second or more throws after making the mando. Consider a hole that dog-legs hard after the mando and you have to throw parallel to the restricted space line to reach the basket. In fact this makes me realize I need to re-mark one of our holes to prevent that travesty.

 

[txmxer]

Restricted space seems a misnomer. Restricted plane is what I'm in understanding.

 

[roblee]

Restricted space seems a misnomer. Restricted plane is what I'm in understanding.

I agree the use of space/plane in the rule could be clearer. They use "space is a vertical plane" in Section B of the rule and "restricted space" in Section C. A plane is a matrix of lines that by definition has no space so maybe using space to define a plane would confuse math nerds.

 

[txmxer]

I agree the use of space/plane in the rule could be clearer. They use "space is a vertical plane" in Section B of the rule and "restricted space" in Section C. A plane is a matrix of lines that by definition has no space so maybe using space to define a plane would confuse math nerds.

Regardless, Im confused by the information provided. Ultimately, the current language is not clear if any part of the disc can enter the restricted plane or space and not result in a penalty.

 

[BillFleming]

I think the new mando rule will be one of, if not the, most incorrectly applied rules. Prior to this year, the mando "restricted space/plane" could only be 'broken/entered' from one direction - that of the tee pad to the target. See post 2 in this thread, where the disc was good and then rolled back into the mando area...the rule at the time was that the lie was good. Now it's not, because it doesn't matter which direction the disc enters the mando restricted space/plane from. Try teaching that to everyone who 'knows' the mando is only from one direction.

And a backswing that takes the disc into the restricted space is a 'violation' of the mando since 802.01.a defines a throw as:

A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position.

So a throw includes the 'arm swing' prior to the release.

Will a player be able to take a meter from the mando so that their swing doesn't cause the disc to enter the restricted area? For OB, you can't have any part of your stance in the OB area prior to releasing the disc - so you are allowed a meter relief for that.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Will a player be able to take a meter from the mando so that their swing doesn't cause the disc to enter the restricted area? For OB, you can't have any part of your stance in the OB area prior to releasing the disc - so you are allowed a meter relief for that.

Unnecessary. It's similar to a Hazard area where you are standing inbounds but throwing from a penalty area.

 

[Steve West]

Unnecessary. It's similar to a Hazard area where you are standing inbounds but throwing from a penalty area.

Expound, please. Especially about the backswing.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Expound, please. Especially about the backswing.

The new rules appear silent on special marking or stance rules when a disc lands touching the missed mando line (unless I missed seeing a new Q&A). Since both sides of the line are inbounds by default, the player presumably either (A) leaves the thrown disc on the line as their marker, or marks toward the mando with a mini, and has to throw around the correct side of the mando if their disc landed there coming from the tee side, or (B) they mark with a mini on the basket side if that's how the disc got there, then take a normal stance to throw. In theory, their release should be considered to have occurred on the basket side of the missed mando line such that their "throw" once losing contact with their hand did not illegally cross the missed mando line.

If that's not how the RC sees it, they need to add instructions for marking relief in that situation such as getting a meter from the MM Line and having your stance completely on the basket side of it upon release.

 

[Ahildy13]

I agree the use of space/plane in the rule could be clearer. They use "space is a vertical plane" in Section B of the rule and "restricted space" in Section C. A plane is a matrix of lines that by definition has no space so maybe using space to define a plane would confuse math nerds.

Yeah, this rule is written like **** now.


If the "restricted space" is really just a "vertical plane marked by one or more objects or other markers which define the edges of the space" then every mando must have at least two objects to create a plane. The second object will likely be a road, path, lake or whatever, but if it isn't defined than the plane goes around the globe, or the plane goes towards the teebox, or wherever I say it goes if it isn't defined. There is a ton of room for interpretation the way this is written.

 

[roblee]

The new rules appear silent on special marking or stance rules when a disc lands touching the missed mando line (unless I missed seeing a new Q&A). Since both sides of the line are inbounds by default, the player presumably either (A) leaves the thrown disc on the line as their marker, or marks toward the mando with a mini, and has to throw around the correct side of the mando if their disc landed there coming from the tee side, or (B) they mark with a mini on the basket side if that's how the disc got there, then take a normal stance to throw. In theory, their release should be considered to have occurred on the basket side of the missed mando line such that their "throw" once losing contact with their hand did not illegally cross the missed mando line.

If that's not how the RC sees it, they need to add instructions for marking relief in that situation such as getting a meter from the MM Line and having your stance completely on the basket side of it upon release.

B is exactly one question I have. Also consider there is no requirement to use a mini here so the stance area would be on the Tee side of the plane. I can play it however it's defined, just unsure. I'll anxiously await an official clarification.

 

[txmxer]

Since 2018, the concept of "making" the mando has been gone. It's all about getting a penalty for going on the wrong side of the mando.

The wrong side of the mando is a prohibited route, rather than the correct side being a required route.

Here is the 2022 rule:



The mando is never nullified.

B is exactly one question I have. Also consider there is no requirement to use a mini here so the stance area would be on the Tee side of the plane. I can play it however it's defined, just unsure. I'll anxiously await an official clarification.

Exactly. I think the rule could use a re-write personally, but if we can get an official interpretation, that would work as well.