Making the mando and being behind it

[Cgkdisc]

Note that it's not always a vertical plane because prohibited routes can be defined over or under a mando horizontal. diagonal or odd shaped bar.

 

[krupicka]

Note that it's not always a vertical plane because prohibited routes can be defined over or under a mando horizontal. diagonal or odd shaped bar.

We could have tried to be more geometrically correct and described it as a flat two-dimensional vertical shape which may be open or closed and then everyone would be trying to figure out what the heck we were talking about. Or we can describe it as a vertical plane where the edges of the space are defined and most people would get it.

The intention of this part of the change was to acknowledge that the objects which define the edges of the missed mandatory were often not necessarily vertical or horizontal. Rather than trying to list all of the different ways a mandatory could be defined as was done in previous rule iterations, we made it more general.

So yes, Chuck, the restricted space is a vertical plane. The rules do not allow specifying the restricted space with a horizontal plane for example. Having a missed mandatory defined by a flat two-dimensional shape which is not perpendicular to the earth is not really allowed either as judging missing such a mandatory would be difficult in most circumstances.

 

[krupicka]

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.

We are working on that clarification.

 

[txmxer]

We are working on that clarification.

Thank you for noting this. I look forward to the resolution.

 

[Cgkdisc]

So yes, Chuck, the restricted space is a vertical plane. The rules do not allow specifying the restricted space with a horizontal plane for example. Having a missed mandatory defined by a flat two-dimensional shape which is not perpendicular to the earth is not really allowed either as judging missing such a mandatory would be difficult in most circumstances.

Are you saying the new rules do not allow TDs to also specify the space above a crossbeam between double mando poles as a restricted space to create a triple mando or are you saying you can't define a restricted space above or below just a single crossbeam as a mando? How about requiring throws thru an arch or large diameter sewer pipe? Seems like there are a few temporary triple mandos placed just past the number 1 tee in some elite events including a few in Europe along with the famous bamboo lined "doorway" on 7 at USDGC.

 

[Steve West]

Are you saying the new rules do not allow TDs to also specify the space above a crossbeam between double mando poles as a restricted space to create a triple mando or are you saying you can't define a restricted space above or below just a single crossbeam as a mando? How about requiring throws thru an arch or large diameter sewer pipe? Seems like there are a few temporary triple mandos placed just past the number 1 tee in some elite events including a few in Europe along with the famous bamboo lined "doorway" on 7 at USDGC.

The TD can do all that. The sheets of glass don't have to go all the way to the ground, nor do they have to have straight edges. They just have to be vertical.

The TD can't actually require that a throw go through an arch or pipe, but they can prohibit any throws from going through a plane that blocks everywhere except inside the arch or pipe.

 

[BillFleming]

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.

Bolding of "their release" is mine to highlight a point. The rule doesn't say anything about the release of the disc. It says the "throw" can't fully enter the restricted space. Look at the definition of throw from the PDGA rules....the throw includes the 'propulsion' of the disc. So, the movement of the disc while still in the hand is part of the throw. Therefore, a reachback that fully enters the restricted space, by the rule, is a violation of the mando rule. If I mark my lie anywhere close to a mando, there is a strong possibility that the disc will enter the restricted space during part of the throw....I don't think that is fair.

I'm glad to see the post from Mike that the rule is being clarified.

 

[TiltedFlipCurves]

New mando rule is trash. If you make the mando, it's made no matter what happens to the disc afterwards.

 

[Rondpitt]

Two questions.
1. I don't see this addressed in the current wording of the rules, but is the mando marking structure itself (tree, post, fence, wall, etc) considered to be in the restricted space? Another way to ask this is ------ if (for example) the restricted space is to the Right of a vertical mando marker does that space begin on the left side or the right side of this marker ?(assuming that most trees/post have a width)

2. This seems to call for some VERY specific wording from a TD in the caddy book, AND require both the perpendicular line and the Restricted Space line to be clearly marked. Wondering if there will be wording added to Comp Manual to police such.

Ron D

 

[Rondpitt]

I am picturing a slew of mando holes I have seen across the country. If I read the new rule and its application correctly. If I said. Then does this line marking the restricted space (from tee area through the mando marker and beyond and beyond and beyond) create restricted space on some holes that includes the target. Asking for a friend. My drawing may or may not be sufficient.
Ron D

 

[rhatton1]

Why does this mando plane need to be omni directional? Why can't it just be one way which in my mind at least solves most of the issues people (me) inherently have with the rule, I can't see the problem it creates either in wording or application?

Single direction, you roll back through it and you have to pass the mando correctly again on the next shot, you don't get an arbitrary stroke for an unfortunate roll, it's much easier for the group to make a decision than the current which has them trying to work out where a roll might have gone on it's way to rest (see diagram here for what I mean, good luck group working out whether that disc rolled across the plane or not from 80 meters away - https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/rwvoz8/i_have_a_question_about_the_new_mando_rules/ ) and is just more intuitive and fits better with the wording of 804.01.A?

I've seen some of the RC try to argue (Todd on Reddit thread above) that a disc rolling back through should be penalised in the same way as a disc flying through the wrong way as both have broken the unthrowable plane but this just seems inherently wrong and also at odds with A. A mandatory route restricts the path the disc may take to the target. Rolling away from isn't to.

What is the issue in making this one directional?

It feels like the RC missed this possibility of discs coming back through the mando plane from the target side when writing the rule and are now scrambling to justify rather than backtrack?

Talking of oversights, I'm also looking forward to the drama of the first wedged discs between DGPT basket advertising banner and the cage counting as a holed out putt. That'll be fun on the socials!

With the old mando rule there was also a section describing it as the line of play/target until passed at which point the next mando or basket would be "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."

What is the Line of Play/target now, is it always to the basket target and your stance will line up to this or has this been covered somewhere else I've missed?

 

[rhatton1]

I am picturing a slew of mando holes I have seen across the country. If I read the new rule and its application correctly. If I said. Then does this line marking the restricted space (from tee area through the mando marker and beyond and beyond and beyond) create restricted space on some holes that includes the target. Asking for a friend. My drawing may or may not be sufficient.
Ron D

The restricted space is not really a space, it's a plane, although it's not really that either, ahh simplification is great. . Think of it as an infinitely narrow line/thing, or imagine a pane of glass as a semi decent analogy. Anything beyond is fine it's just the plane/glass can't be broken by the disc, currently from any direction, I would like to see it that the plane can only not be broken from one direction.

 

[rhatton1]

application?

it's much easier for the group to make a decision than the current which has them trying to work out where a roll might have gone on it's way to rest (see diagram here for what I mean, good luck group working out whether that disc rolled across the plane or not from 80 meters away - https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/rwvoz8/i_have_a_question_about_the_new_mando_rules/ ) and is just more intuitive and fits better with the wording of 804.01.A?

And yes I suppose you could say this roll had also broken the one directional mandatory plane by going back the other side on the weird roll, but again, good luck group spotting that from 80 meters away...

 

[Steve West]

I am picturing a slew of mando holes I have seen across the country. If I read the new rule and its application correctly. If I said. Then does this line marking the restricted space (from tee area through the mando marker and beyond and beyond and beyond) create restricted space on some holes that includes the target. Asking for a friend. My drawing may or may not be sufficient.
Ron D

Your diagram would be an extremely unusual way to define the restricted plane. Most often, when TD wants the disc to go left of the tree, the restricted plane would start at the tree and go to the right, perpendicular to the line you drew.

 

[txmxer]

Your diagram would be an extremely unusual way to define the restricted plane. Most often, when TD wants the disc to go left of the tree, the restricted plane would start at the tree and go to the right, perpendicular to the line you drew.

Going back to Bill's drawing, seems to me that a mando parallel to the flight path is more appropriately defined as OB.

 

[krupicka]

Why does this mando plane need to be omni directional? Why can't it just be one way which in my mind at least solves most of the issues people (me) inherently have with the rule, I can't see the problem it creates either in wording or application?

Directionality can actually be difficult to codify in some scenarios. Previous rules tried to describe it based on the previous lie which didn't always work. The RC felt it was simpler to in both to make it omnidirectional (and less difficult for TDs to mess up defining mandatories)

I've seen some of the RC try to argue (Todd on Reddit thread above) that a disc rolling back through should be penalised in the same way as a disc flying through the wrong way as both have broken the unthrowable plane but this just seems inherently wrong and also at odds with A. A mandatory route restricts the path the disc may take to the target. Rolling away from isn't to.

Leaving in to the target was an oversight in the editing process as it is causing the confusion you are experiencing. The path a disc takes to the target consists of multiple throws, is rarely a straight line, and may have many twists in turns in before the hole is completed. When in trouble, there are plenty of times where a player might throw a disc towards the tee. This is still part of the path the disc is taking to the target.

It feels like the RC missed this possibility of discs coming back through the mando plane from the target side when writing the rule and are now scrambling to justify rather than backtrack?

Not an oversight. This was considered in our year+ long discussion on revising this rule.

With the old mando rule there was also a section describing it as the line of play/target until passed at which point the next mando or basket would be "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."

What is the Line of Play/target now, is it always to the basket target and your stance will line up to this or has this been covered somewhere else I've missed?

It is always to the basket target. There are many instances where players did not understand when and when not to apply the old rule with respect to the LOP. The hope is there are less ways for a player to screw it up now.

 

[BillFleming]

Going back to Bill's drawing, seems to me that a mando parallel to the flight path is more appropriately defined as OB.

Nope. It's purpose is different than OB. The road to the left of the mando is OB. The purpose of the 'double mando' between the fairway and the OB road is to stop players from intentionally throwing over the road (only OB if you land in it) and having their disc come back into the field of play close to the basket. Without the mando, players were throwing over the road and even over the adjacent field....so cars and people in the park's field were in danger of being hit. I would have made the OB/Mando reason clearer, but my question was based on the play of the mando.

 

[BillFleming]

Directionality can actually be difficult to codify in some scenarios.

This doesn't make it any easier. If the disc comes to rest on the mando line and not fully over it; how do you tell which direction it came from?

If it came from the direction of the tee pad, then the player still has to go on the proper side of the mando.

If it came from the direction of the target (wind pushed it back or it rolled back); the player only has to throw in the direction of the target as the mando was already properly passed.

However, that leaves the issue that the throw (the reachback/backswing is part of the throw) could cause the disc to fully enter the restricted space which would be a violation. I think that if the rule is going to be that the disc cannot enter the restricted area as part of the throw, we need to be allowed a meter relief....similar to the OB rule that no part of the stance can be OB prior to the release of the disc.

 

[BillFleming]

BTW: I've talked to players about the new mando rule and the fact that it is effective from both directions (tee to target and target to tee)....some basically called me a liar, but the majority said I had it wrong....it's only from the tee to the target. I discussed the explanations that have been on this thread and we've come to the realization that this is a rule that is going to be enforced different ways.

1. People aren't aware it is omni directional
2. People aren't aware the rule now applies to the disc during its throw and not just where it comes to rest.
3. People aren't aware that if ANY part of the throw (reachback/backswing/etc) causes the disc to fully enter the restricted area it is a violation of the rule.

Those are the 3 big issues.

 

[txmxer]

Nope. It's purpose is different than OB. The road to the left of the mando is OB. The purpose of the 'double mando' between the fairway and the OB road is to stop players from intentionally throwing over the road (only OB if you land in it) and having their disc come back into the field of play close to the basket. Without the mando, players were throwing over the road and even over the adjacent field....so cars and people in the park's field were in danger of being hit. I would have made the OB/Mando reason clearer, but my question was based on the play of the mando.

I play a similar hole with a mando used to keep people from throwing over the road. It's a single mando and the plane is perpendicular to the flight path. With regard to your sketch, if I were playing the hole, unless explicitly shown otherwise, I would assume that the mando planes are perpendicular to the flight path as marked by the redlines I added to your sketch. In my view, the brown line/disc path would not have entered a restricted space.