Playing backwards to correct side of a mandatory

[IHearChains]

The TD has a double mandatory defined by two trees, with no drop zone. TD has declared that shots passing on the outside of the double mandatory must be played backwards in order to come through the mando in the proper direction.

A player misses the mando, plays backwards toward the mando, and comes up short, resting at the base of the basket side of the mando tree. Direction of play is still defined backward toward the mando tree.

Q: To play the next shot, how is the stance determined?

(a) is the mando tree treated like a single point, and no supporting point can be closer to it?
(b) do you instead consider the line between the mando trees, extended outward, and no supporting point can be closer to that line?

In (a), the player could have one foot correctly behind the lie, and step out toward the tee, with the other foot on the tee-side of the tree (but no closer to it) so as to reach around the tree to throw toward the basket. In (b) such a stance would not be allowable because you'd be stepping across the line.

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

 

[kenjiac]

This issues is irrelevant if the TD did not get a waiver to change the rules. Once passing the wrong side of the mando it's a re-tee or throw from previously lie with a penalty. So the situation you describing is hard to comment on.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I think we went over "mando stance rule" after the Koling incident in Texas(last year or year before?) and the result was, iirc, that if the line from the basket to your disc passes the good side of the mando, you would take your stance in relation to the basket. If it passes the bad side of the mando, then you would take your stance in relation to the mando.

 

[JC17393]

As Kenji points out, the whole premise runs counter to the PDGA Rules of Play, so there is no correct answer for it. Even with a waiver, the nearest applicable rule for marking the lie (804.02.D) doesn't truly apply since a direct line from the basket to the lie doesn't pass any mandatory, on the correct side or not.

That said, waaay back in the day when the rule was that you "unwound" a missed mandatory, the mandatory object was the "target" for determining line of play, stance, etc. So I'd say the nearest mandatory tree to the disc in play would be what you use.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

Ok... so in my thoughts about this is bad design, shouldn't be done and all of other thoughts on complaining rather than answering the question at hand...

Say its an unsanctioned event and this rule is declared and all other PDGA rules apply...

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?

I would think the exact point/target for determining the line of play would be the outside, or originally bad side, of the mando tree since you are not trying to hit the tree but get back around to the outside?

 

[R-Ogre]

 

[Putt for D'oh]

oops missed the edit window.
Because the line that determines whether you make or miss the mando is determined by your previous lie and extends out perpendicular to the line from the lie to the mando, I would think the idea you could straddle around the tree to not be acceptable.
Its not really a single point but the line is not actually between the trees. A double mando is really two separate single mandos.

 

[cheesethin]

...Because the line that determines whether you make or miss the mando is determined by your previous lie and extends out perpendicular to the line from the lie to the mando,....

That's not correct. The direction from which you are deemed to have missed the mando is determined by the previous lie.

But the mando line itself, if not physically marked, is defined as being perpendicular to the line from the TEE to the mando object.

 

[araytx]

The TD has a double mandatory defined by two trees, with no drop zone. TD has declared that shots passing on the outside of the double mandatory must be played backwards in order to come through the mando in the proper direction.

A player misses the mando, plays backwards toward the mando, and comes up short, resting at the base of the basket side of the mando tree. Direction of play is still defined backward toward the mando tree.

Q: To play the next shot, how is the stance determined?

(a) is the mando tree treated like a single point, and no supporting point can be closer to it?
(b) do you instead consider the line between the mando trees, extended outward, and no supporting point can be closer to that line?

In (a), the player could have one foot correctly behind the lie, and step out toward the tee, with the other foot on the tee-side of the tree (but no closer to it) so as to reach around the tree to throw toward the basket. In (b) such a stance would not be allowable because you'd be stepping across the line.

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

As many have stated, without a waiver from the tour manager, this violates the PDGA rules. You cannot take away an option in the rule book without expressed written permission of the tour manager.

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.

 

[DavidSauls]

As many have stated, without a waiver from the tour manager, this violates the PDGA rules. You cannot take away an option in the rule book without expressed written permission of the tour manager.

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.

Depends on where the mando is. If it's 250' from the tee, and you pass it on the wrong side by 20', I'm sure you'd rather play your disc and pitch back to the tee side of the mando, than drive away.

*

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.

 

[IHearChains]

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]

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. :hfive:

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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 :hfive:

 

[araytx]

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]

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.