Making the mando and being behind it

[Steve West]

I think if you look closer at the diameter of say a flag pole and disc, you would see angles of contact with the flagpole where the disc had penetrated the restricted space. Even larger diameter mandos have positions on their radius where part of a disc contacting it, especially with the appropriate spin, will have crossed the restricted space and the disc will land back safe on the side it originated.

Now if the rules or Q&A explicitly say that contact with the mando does not indicate restricted space penetration, as long as the disc lands safe, then that would clarify this tough-to-determine call, especially from a distance.

Landing has nothing to do with whether a disc has missed the mando. Neither does whether the disc hit the mando object or not. It's only about whether it left a hole in the sheet of paper.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Landing has nothing to do with whether a disc has missed the mando. Neither does whether the disc hit the mando object or not. It's only about whether it left a hole in the sheet of paper.

I'm saying landing should have something to do with it when contact was made with the mando object. There will be countless times the disc hits the mando object, "pokes a virtual hole in the paper", and lands back safe. Without high-speed cameras, who can make that call from a distance. Rather than have another point of contention among players, seems like it would have been wise to state that making contact with the mando object and resulting safe lie never be considered poking the paper, presuming the disc was not seen to subsequently cross the line sometime after mando contact and say roll back to the safe side.

 

[Ahildy13]

I'm saying landing should have something to do with it when contact was made with the mando object. There will be countless times the disc hits the mando object, "pokes a virtual hole in the paper", and lands back safe. Without high-speed cameras, who can make that call from a distance. Rather than have another point of contention among players, seems like it would have been wise to state that making contact with the mando object and resulting safe lie never be considered poking the paper, presuming the disc was not seen to subsequently cross the line sometime after mando contact and say roll back to the safe side.

This would be clarified by stating that the "edge of the restricted plane begins on the side of the mandatory object and does not include the mandatory object itself."

This doesn't help with trees as mandos, where we want to use the edge of the trunk instead of the outermost limbs. Perhaps all mandos need to be marked with a stake in the ground instead.

 

[Steve West]

I'm saying landing should have something to do with it when contact was made with the mando object. There will be countless times the disc hits the mando object, "pokes a virtual hole in the paper", and lands back safe. Without high-speed cameras, who can make that call from a distance. Rather than have another point of contention among players, seems like it would have been wise to state that making contact with the mando object and resulting safe lie never be considered poking the paper, presuming the disc was not seen to subsequently cross the line sometime after mando contact and say roll back to the safe side.

No need, the rule covers that. If players would need high-speed cameras, or need to scrutinize it up close, then it did not "clearly" enter the restricted space. So play as if it didn't.

 

[Cgkdisc]

No need, the rule covers that. If players would need high-speed cameras, or need to scrutinize it up close, then it did not "clearly" enter the restricted space. So play as if it didn't.

That's the call I would make by default. Just pointing out that physics would indicate that a disc had to have poked the paper during a significant arc of deflection angles off the mando.

 

[krupicka]

Marking the mando differently can make it easier / harder to discern. Here is some fun ASCII art. Depending on where the restricted space is defined, it may make it easier to know if bouncing off the mandatory object could have broken the plane.

Bad

(Basket)

        O___________ 

(Tee)

=================
Better
(Basket)

     O----------------

(Tee)
=================
Even Better
(Basket)

      ______________
     O


(Tee)

 

[Cgkdisc]

Marking the mando differently can make it easier / harder to discern. Here is some fun ASCII art. Depending on where the restricted space is defined, it may make it easier to know if bouncing off the mandatory object could have broken the plane.

Bad

(Basket)

        O___________ 

(Tee)

=================
Better
(Basket)

     O----------------

(Tee)
=================
Even Better
(Basket)

      ______________
     O


(Tee)

Except that your Even Better example does increase exposure of the RS line to back side contact although less likely in your Tee/Basket positions other than a RHBH roller.

 

[BillFleming]

I think if you look closer at the diameter of say a flag pole and disc, you would see angles of contact with the flagpole where the disc had penetrated the restricted space. Even larger diameter mandos have positions on their radius where part of a disc contacting it, especially with the appropriate spin, will have crossed the restricted space and the disc will land back safe on the side it originated.

Now if the rules or Q&A explicitly say that contact with the mando does not indicate restricted space penetration, as long as the disc lands safe, then that would clarify this tough-to-determine call, especially from a distance.

You've changed the circumstances...

before you said

I'm not sure I read what happens when the disc deflects off of the mando object on the restricted space side of it and doesn't land on or cross the restricted space.

now you are saying....

angles of contact with the flagpole where the disc had penetrated the restricted space. Even larger diameter mandos have positions on their radius where part of a disc contacting it, especially with the appropriate spin, will have crossed the restricted space

Before, your scenario was just that the disc deflected on the wrong side of the mando but NEVER crossed or landed on the restricted space. = no violation/penalty

Now, your scenario is that the disc DID cross or land on the restricted space. = violation/penalty

Two different scenarios and two different rulings.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Before, your scenario was just that the disc deflected on the wrong side of the mando but NEVER crossed or landed on the restricted space. = no violation/penalty

Now, your scenario is that the disc DID cross or land on the restricted space. = violation/penalty

Two different scenarios and two different rulings.

I was saying that you can't see whether your deflection "poked the paper" upon contact with the mando but know it must have happened based on certain angles the disc contacted the mando, even if the disc landed safe. Rather than arguing angles, seems like the rule should simply state that contact alone does not constitute poking the paper. Steve is falling back on the concept of "not clearly seen poking the paper" as the catch all for suspect contact with the mando, sort of benefit of the doubt to the player.

 

[BillFleming]

I was saying that you can't see whether your deflection "poked the paper" upon contact with the mando but know it must have happened based on certain angles the disc contacted the mando, even if the disc landed safe. Rather than arguing angles, seems like the rule should simply state that contact alone does not constitute poking the paper. Steve is falling back on the concept of "not clearly seen poking the paper" as the catch all for suspect contact with the mando, sort of benefit of the doubt to the player.

Ah....the "I think...but can't prove it" situation. I agree with Steve and it applies to everything. The card makes the decision and as long as the majority agrees, that's the ruling ...or if there isn't a majority, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player. With one exception....if a player in the group says they are appealing it. Then a Tournament Official has to make the ruling.

There will always be times where the action can't be seen and no one is positive of what happened. That is why the player gets the benefit of the doubt. For example. an OB that has a corner (two OB lines meet at one spot). A disc flies near that corner. Did part of it go over the corner and therefore, in bounds or did it stay OB the whole time? Island green with OB all around - front edge 300 feet from the tee box. Did the disc enter the in bound island before going back OB?

At the distance people can throw, it can be very difficult to tell what the result of the throw is....that's why some times the player gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Steve West]

I was saying that you can't see whether your deflection "poked the paper" upon contact with the mando but know it must have happened based on certain angles the disc contacted the mando, even if the disc landed safe. Rather than arguing angles, seems like the rule should simply state that contact alone does not constitute poking the paper. Steve is falling back on the concept of "not clearly seen poking the paper" as the catch all for suspect contact with the mando, sort of benefit of the doubt to the player.

There are an infinite number of things that can happen which would also not constitute poking the paper. There's no reason to list any of them.

I did some sloppy geometry. I think there is only a 22.5 degree section of a round object where the disc could touch the plane and not continue on through it.

Say it's a mando right on a round pole, with the plane perpendicular to the line from the tee through the center of the pole. (So the restricted space is to the left of the pole.)

The place where a disc could hit the pole, break the plane, and not continue on through the plane would be the one-sixteenth of the circumference between the farthest left side of the pole (at 9 o'clock) and a little in front of the left side (at 8:15 o'clock).

Also, the disc would need to come in from the leftish side of the pole. Not possible on the first throw (without a deflection), because even a forehand only goes about 45 degrees at the end.

The disc would need to be traveling from within the triangle defined by 9 o'clock to 8:15 o'clock. It could come in from 8:15 and hit the pole at exactly 8:15, or come in at 9 o'clock and hit anywhere between 9 o'clock and 8:15. A throw coming in from any angle in-between would have a limited area to hit the pole: Between the angle they come in from and 8:15.

Plus, there is a mirror image section if the disc was thrown from a lie already past the plane.

I could be wrong about the geometry. You'd better tape some wet tissue paper to a stripper pole and try it out.

 

[zenbot]

Marking the mando differently can make it easier / harder to discern. Here is some fun ASCII art. Depending on where the restricted space is defined, it may make it easier to know if bouncing off the mandatory object could have broken the plane.

Bad

(Basket)

        O___________ 

(Tee)

=================
Better
(Basket)

     O----------------

(Tee)
=================
Even Better
(Basket)

      ______________
     O


(Tee)

Would've been cooler if you added Kirby throwing his disc all up there.

(>0.0)> 0

 

[inboxcar]

I am reading all these interpretations with references to a "plane" created by the mando...is this assuming all mandos are vertical? We have some mandos at some local courses that are painted on trees, some of which are very far from vertical, and the tree trunk itself has many changes in direction. Also the trunk of the tree splits on some of these, so if you make it between the forks of these above the painted mando arrow, there has always been ambiguity if the mando was made or missed.

What is the deal with these situations where one side of a non-vertical, non-straight tree trunk is marked as a mando, especially if you go above the tree? Where would the "vertical plane" exist?

 

[Ahildy13]

I am reading all these interpretations with references to a "plane" created by the mando...is this assuming all mandos are vertical? We have some mandos at some local courses that are painted on trees, some of which are very far from vertical, and the tree trunk itself has many changes in direction. Also the trunk of the tree splits on some of these, so if you make it between the forks of these above the painted mando arrow, there has always been ambiguity if the mando was made or missed.

What is the deal with these situations where one side of a non-vertical, non-straight tree trunk is marked as a mando, especially if you go above the tree? Where would the "vertical plane" exist?

Sigh...
Yes, all mandos are vertical planes.

The EDGES of the plane do not have to be vertical. Your tree trunk is just line that indicates the edge of the restricted plane.

 

[inboxcar]

Sigh...
Yes, all mandos are vertical planes.

The EDGES of the plane do not have to be vertical. Your tree trunk is just line that indicates the edge of the restricted plane.

but if the trunk is leaning at a 45 degree angle, and is marked mando to the direction it is leading, then where is it defining a line?

For instance:

\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\<<\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \

A plane is 2 dimensional and extends infinitely in those 2 directions. I dont really get how it could be vertical in this instance since you could be left of the tree trunk but at different horizontal components relative to the mando itself.

 

[inboxcar]

but if the trunk is leaning at a 45 degree angle, and is marked mando to the direction it is leading, then where is it defining a line?

For instance:

\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\<<\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \

A plane is 2 dimensional and extends infinitely in those 2 directions. I dont really get how it could be vertical in this instance since you could be left of the tree trunk but at different horizontal components relative to the mando itself.

ha! my ascii drawing did not post the same way that it looked on the preview...it is supposed to be leaning over top left to bottom right.

 

[Ahildy13]

but if the trunk is leaning at a 45 degree angle, and is marked mando to the direction it is leading, then where is it defining a line?

For instance:

\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\<<\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \

A plane is 2 dimensional and extends infinitely in those 2 directions. I dont really get how it could be vertical in this instance since you could be left of the tree trunk but at different horizontal components relative to the mando itself.

Vertical means up and down. Your planes edges in the case are the ground, and the angled tree trunk. It continues infinitely to the right and up.

Imagine its like this window, kinda.
The PLANE of the window is vertical, despite every edge not running vertically.

 

[peabody]

Say the mando tree is a leaning corkscrew trunk with limbs going out 50 feet in every direction.
Where do you start your vertical plane?
At the base? Edge of a limb?
Can you make part of the tree not part of the mando?

 

[Ahildy13]

Say the mando tree is a leaning corkscrew trunk with limbs going out 50 feet in every direction.
Where do you start your vertical plane?
At the base? Edge of a limb?
Can you make part of the tree not part of the mando?

This would be a really bad choice of mando, but could be done. This comes back to something I mentioned previously, that there needs to be a second point or direction dictating the line of the mando plane.

From a head on view, the restricted space would be in red, and the TD would need to specify which branches end the mando plane (yellow). Or the whole tree could be considered and it would become more of a tunnel shot.

From the top view, the easiest option would be to use the center of the trunk and a defined direction marked by another point or line. If you did not pass this line, you did not cross the mando.

The reason this is a bad choice of mando object is because the twist of the corkscrew takes away the players knowing "clearly" if the disc broke the plane.

 

[txmxer]

Say the mando tree is a leaning corkscrew trunk with limbs going out 50 feet in every direction.
Where do you start your vertical plane?
At the base? Edge of a limb?
Can you make part of the tree not part of the mando?

The memorial had this situation--I think hole 10(? IRC) is a good example. I do think it could be an issue and the actual vertical line of the mando boundary should be clearly indicated.

Hammes hit the limb on the correct side of the mando and the disc went past the tree trunk about 10', so he "made" the mando, but did go inside one of the limbs of the tree.