USDGC Hole 7 - Rule 804.02.F

[Coyote15]

I watched much of the video from the 2015 USDGC and I have come to the conclusion that many pro and non-pro golfers do not know about or do not understand all rules associated with mandos, in particular Rule 804.02.F, which states: "The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory."

Two examples from Hole 7 at the 2015 USDGC are notable: 1) Ricky Wysocki's birdie putt during the final round; and 2) Eagle McMahon's second shot during round 2. For both of these examples the player used an incorrect line of play and, thus, their stance was completely illegal, but nobody called it.

If the bamboo structure was an obstacle, then their stances looked legal. But, the bamboo structure is a mando and the above mentioned rules are applicable. Go back and look at the relative locations of their disc/mini, the basket, and the opening in the mando. Where his mini is located means that the line of play must be from the mini to the edge of the mando opening, and, NOT a direct line to the basket through the wall of the mando. It is very clear on the videos that the line of play used by Ricky/Eagle was incorrect and thus the stance was completely illegal. I think that once you understand Rule 804.02.F, and really look at the video, there is no other conclusion than an illegal stance, and not by a little bit, but significantly illegal, especially Ricky's birdie putt. Based on my estimates, Ricky needed to rotate his stance 40 to 50 degrees counterclockwise and Eagle needed to rotate his stance 25 to 35 degrees clockwise to be legal.

Please note that I am bringing this up so that more disc golfers will understand the stated rule and use the correct line of play. Cheers

 

[BuzzzChief]

You're totally correct and I never would have caught that. I would guess that 99.9% of people wouldn't realize this, even people that know the rulebook well.

 

[ToddL]

Yup. This conversation comes up every now and then, and Winthrop #7 is the classic example. I had to call out a guy on my card at USDGC (performance flight) for that (before he threw it, though).

Note that this has a couple of strange side effects.
1 - If you are sufficiently far away from the mandatory object, you'll have to set your stance in the normal fashion but relative to the mando -- that is, keeping your feet behind a line roughly perpendicular to the new line of play.

2 - If you are really close to the mando, but the LOP to the basket still goes on the wrong side, you get to take advantage of where you can put your feet. In the diagram below, a player could put his left foot behind his disc and his right foot way over to the right, possibly closer to the basket than his left, as long as it's not in the red circle.

 

[Coyote15]

Thanks for the diagrams ToddL!! But your second example does not sound right. Not sure about your "no touch zone." Relative to Example 2, my understanding is that if a player puts is left foot behind the mini, there is no way that the right foot could legally be closer to the basket (unless he is standing backwards). However, if a player puts his right foot behind the mini, he could extend his left such that it would be closer to the basket.

Where did you come up with "no touch zones? In my view, for all circumstances, both feet must be behind a line that is perpendicular to the correct line of play.

 

[JC17393]

Thanks for the diagrams ToddL!! But your second example does not sound right. Not sure about your "no touch zone." Relative to Example 2, my understanding is that if a player puts is left foot behind the mini, there is no way that the right foot could legally be closer to the basket (unless he is standing backwards). However, if a player puts his right foot behind the mini, he could extend his left such that it would be closer to the basket.

Where did you come up with "no touch zones? In my view, for all circumstances, both feet must be behind a line that is perpendicular to the correct line of play.

According to 804.02F, the mando becomes the target for "all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief". Which means, for all intents and purposes during the throw, the basket itself doesn't exist...at least as far as the rules go. So you can legally stand closer to the basket since for that shot, it is not the target.

As to the bolded, the word "perpendicular" does not exist in any stance-related rule. The stance rule dictates that no supporting point can be closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker. That distance (target to the rear edge of the marker) creates the radius of a circle with the target at its center, with that circle essentially being the "no touch" zone depicted in the diagram. That applies whether the target is a mando or the actual target/basket.

 

[coupe]

Where did you come up with "no touch zones? In my view, for all circumstances, both feet must be behind a line that is perpendicular to the correct line of play.

There is nothing in 804.02 that requires a player's supporting points to be behind a line perpendicular to the LOP; it only requires that no supporting point be closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc. In other words, the only thing 804.02 prohibits is placing a supporting point within the area defined by the radius of a circle the circumscribed by the distance between the target and the rear edge of the marker disc. Consequently, if, as in diagram 2 above, the rear edge of the marker disc is 1' from the target (mando), a player could place a supporting 13" beyond the target and still comply with the requirements of 804.02.

 

[KGroff25]

This interpretation passes the logic test, but doesn't quite pass the common sense test. I'd like to hear what Chuck Kennedy or one of the other rules aficionado has to say about it.

Edit: The interpretation that allows you to stand closer to the pin.

 

[coupe]

This interpretation passes the logic test, but doesn't quite pass the common sense test. I'd like to hear what Chuck Kennedy or one of the other rules aficionado has to say about it.

Hmm … so the line is actually a circle with a radius that's the distance from the basket to the mini when the target is the basket, but it's not when it's a mando?

Edit: The interpretation that allows you to stand closer to the pin.

Because the pin is NOT THE TARGET in this scenaro, the mando is.

 

[biscoe]

Josh is right. When the mando is used as the target your feet can conceivably be closer to the basket (which is not the target at that point) than your mark.

 

[coupe]

Picture of Putting Circle

 

[Coyote15]

Thank you for the insight coupe and JC. It is an interesting (and maybe correct or not) interpretation of the rules that I had not thought of before.

Lets consider another example for your interpretation: Paul McBeth's birdie putt on Hole 7 final round of USDGC. It appears that his mini is within a foot of the edge of the mando, and lets assume that his line of play is not clear of the mando opening. Based on your interp, it appears that Paul could've kept his right foot behind the mini as he actually did, but, his left foot could be 3 feet towards the actual basket (remember that your circle has a diameter of 2 feet). That does not make sense to me.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This interpretation passes the logic test, but doesn't quite pass the common sense test. I'd like to hear what Chuck Kennedy or one of the other rules aficionado has to say about it.

Edit: The interpretation that allows you to stand closer to the pin.

As pointed out, the mando becomes the target in these examples. As long as none of your other contact points with the playing surface are not closer to the mando than the back of your marker as you release your throw, it's a legal stance. That fact that another contact point might be closer to the pin is just a curiosity.

Sometimes when my disc is completely under the basket cylinder, I'll specifically put my non-plant foot to the side of the basket where it looks like it's "in front" of my lie, but it's actually farther from the basket than my mark under it - just to mess with players.

 

[JC17393]

Thank you for the insight coupe and JC. It is an interesting (and maybe correct or not) interpretation of the rules that I had not thought of before.

Lets consider another example for your interpretation: Paul McBeth's birdie putt on Hole 7 final round of USDGC. It appears that his mini is within a foot of the edge of the mando, and lets assume that his line of play is not clear of the mando opening. Based on your interp, it appears that Paul could've kept his right foot behind the mini as he actually did, but, his left foot could be 3 feet towards the actual basket (remember that your circle has a diameter of 2 feet). That does not make sense to me.

Could have, but that would be one hell of an awkward stance for the shot he was attempting.

Also, in seeking out Paul's putt, I saw Ricky's putt you mention in the first post. There's nothing illegal about his putt at all. He's close enough to that corner post that represents that mando that his left foot was no closer to it than his marker and right foot. He even turns to the group and asks if he's "all right" (legal) before he throws his shot.

While you have the rule correct regarding the mando and using it as the target for the purposes of marking and stance, you are 100% incorrect about this perpendicular line thing.

 

[Coyote15]

Yes, my interpretation was based on perpendicular line. That seemed to be logical to me, but, based on your comments, it is incorrect. And, if that is the case, I would agree that Ricky DID have a legal stance and I was completely wrong.

 

[ToddL]

Both of the following are legal stances.

When you're far away from the target, the circle is awfully close to the perpendicular. It's close enough that from 20 or 30 feet, you might as well call it a perpendicular because you'll never be able to tell the difference. At 30 feet from the basket and a 3 foot wide stance, the difference between the cirlce and the perpendicular is 1.8 inches. At 20 feet, the difference is 2.7 inches.

But when you're close to the target, the difference between the perpendicular and the circle is big. You can straddle the target for all the rules care as long as your other foot is farther away than the lie (and as long as you're not touching the target). Most of the time you have no reason to care about this, because if you're close enough to be able to take advantage of this, you're close enough to not need to. But the mando exception is the one time you might actually want to. Put one foot on the lie and stretch the other foot across the "no-touch zone" to the other side.

 

[JoakimBL]

Without knowing for sure, I don't think there is an issue with Hole 7 at the USDGC. I caught it too, when Ricky putted during the final round, but if the Mandatory is not the opening, but instead the ends of the bamboo wall, there is no problem.

 

[JoakimBL]

Ok, I just found the caddy book, and according to that, my theory is wrong. It made so much sense to me that I assumed it to be the case. That is terrible that the best players in the world and all the officials there didn't address this issue!
However it could be for Ricky's putt that the above scenario made it legal. I still think my solution is better

 

[JoakimBL]

Never mind my post. At least part of them. I responded as if the thread was only the first page. I missed that there was a second posting from my phone.

 

[joshmo65]

So you can't be closer to either mando? If you land your disc between the mandos, does that mean you are not allowed to straddle putt then because you will be closer to one of the two mandos? It also appears that you cannot place your foot directly behind your lie...

 

[KGroff25]

"The nearest mandatory which has not yet been passed is considered to be the target for all rules related to marking the lie, stance, obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of that mandatory."

I would interpret that to say that if your between the mandos then you have a clear line to the basket and it therefore remains as the target.