Mandatory Question

[himynameismatt]

Ok here's the scenario...

The Hole is a short, 230'-250', yet very sharp dogleg left with a decline in elevation all the way to the pin. Think a backwards "C". From the Teepad, a Mandatory, and a row of small trees left of the the mandatory force players to throw the backwards "C" rather the direct route to the pin.

Lefty backhand I threw a touch anny here that hit the row of trees left of the mando and took a strange bounce around the mando landed on edge and rolled all the way to the putting circle.

Basically "that guy" was there and had to ruin the good time by saying the shot wasn't legal because it had hit left of the mando before bouncing off and going around the mando.

What say you dgr?

[veganray]

"That guy" is an idiot - and a dickface. If a throw crosses the mando line on the correct side of the mando (regardless of what it did before that), the mando is made & the shot is "good".

803.12 Mandatories
A. A mandatory restricts the path the disc may take to the target. A disc must pass to the correct side of the mandatory before the hole is completed. Once the disc has completely passed the mandatory line on the correct side (even if it subsequently re-crosses the line), the mandatory is to be ignored for the remainder of play on that hole.

(1) The mandatory line is the line marked by the director or course designer to indicate when a disc has passed or missed the mandatory.
(2) If no line is marked, the mandatory line is defined as a straight line through the mandatory, perpendicular to the line from the tee to the mandatory.
(3) In the case of a double mandatory when no line is marked, the mandatory line is the straight line connecting the two mandatories, and extends beyond them in both directions.

B. A throw is considered to have missed the mandatory if it passes the incorrect side of the mandatory line from the direction of the tee, and comes to rest lying completely beyond that line. (emphasis added)

C. A disc that has missed the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory. In cases where the drop zone is not designated, the lie is marked within five meters of the mandatory object and one meter behind the mandatory line which extends from the correct side of the mandatory.

D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole.

E. A throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.12). It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Yep. A shot would also be "good" if your disc had crossed the good side of the mando line, hit a tree and came back around the front side of the mando tree and crossed the bad side of the mando line as it rolled down to the basket.

[Bombmk]

Yep. A shot would also be "good" if your disc had crossed the good side of the mando line, hit a tree and came back around the front side of the mando tree and crossed the bad side of the mando line as it rolled down to the basket.

Really? If thats the case, the rules need to specify this. The highlighted part in the quote above seems to contradict that.

I would have a hard time arguing that one with the rules in hand. And "Chuck kennedy said so on a forum" would prob not be a winnable argument.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The rules do specify that. Read section A. posted above. Once the disc passes the correct side, the mandatory is ignored for the rest of the disc's flight (and subsequent throws). So section B. becomes irrelevant once the mando is passed correctly.

[Bombmk]

Sorry, I must have been blind. (Though I would prob still have read that as counting from the next throw on.)

Good to know!

[vto]

I'm a bit curious about why the mando rule is made so that once the disc passed it correctly, the mando is ignored for subsequent throws, even if the disc comes backwards across the mando line. Many mandos have been placed for safety reasons, so passing the mando from the wrong side might not be safe, yet in the case the disc crossed the mando correctly and then came back, you can now by the rules throw from the wrong side of the mando, the very route that was deemed unsafe by the course designer.

To me it would make more sense from a safety point of view that any time a throw crosses the mando line from the direction of the tee it must pass the correct side of the mando.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Mandos should never be used to "solve" a potential safety problem. It's a poor hole design from the start.

[Jeronimo]

I read this thread title as a question that MUST be asked. No matter what.

[Bombmk]

Mandos should never be used to "solve" a potential safety problem. It's a poor hole design from the start.

Disregarding the fact that it probably is used as a safety promoting tool on some holes, I still find that part of the rules somewhat perplexing.

What should be a tool to force the players to play along a certain route - to remove a much easier route one would expect (nothing else really makes sense if we disregard the safety issue) - is not really forcing it because it is "unless you have already passed the line and bounced/rolled back. Now take the easy line for all we care". So a player that actually had a relatively bad shot might now face a much easier route than the ones who took the designated route.

I don't understand the reasoning behind that part of the rules. Why allow playing the wrong side of the mandatory at all? I am not expecting you to give me said reasoning, Chuck - but if you care to share your thoughts on it, it would be appreciated. Understanding the reasoning might help extrapolate to whats fair in a situation that for some reason is in a gray area ruleswise.

[Chuck Kennedy]

It's definitely unusual in that making the mandatory is one of the few rules that is called while the disc is in flight and not after it has landed. I think philosophically, the idea is that once your disc has executed the required mando challenge that it shouldn't be taken away due to fluky pinball action that kicks your disc back across the line. On the other hand, missing the mando is an unfortunate event. So the missed mando rule isn't applied until your disc comes to rest giving you a longer time for something lucky to happen where the disc might kick or roll back in front of the line so you don't get penalized for missing the mando.

I do agree that it seems strange that you would allow someone to throw across the bad side of the mando after they passed the good side and their shot came around so their next throw could be thrown on the bad side. But players are going to throw on the bad side accidentally anyway which is why mandos are a poor choice if safety is a concern. Here's a little history related to playing on the "bad side" which is why the mando rule changed from unwinding to using drop zones. It never made sense to me that if you didn't want players throwing from beyond the bad side of the mando why you would magnify the problem by having players make their next throw from their shanks on the bad side of the mando to unwind.

At the 1999 Pro Worlds in Rochester, there was a temp course called Gennessee Valley (which was revived in 2011 Am Worlds). Hole 18 was near the main parking lot. A few days before the event started we observed some big arms practicing by trying to crush over the parking lot with several shanks coming close or hitting parked cars. I suggested a mando to TDs Royce and Palmeri. However, the unwinding rule was still in place which meant players would still be throwing from the parking lot or back over it to unwind (assuming parking lot was OB) around the mando tree.

I had heard Tom Monroe talking about experimentally using a drop zone for a mando in Florida back in the 70s, early 80s. I suggested we try that approach here. We cleared the idea with Commissioner Jim Challas and that was the first official mando using a drop zone. A few players missed the mando but it was positioned such that most of the shanks did not go in the parking lot or just barely dribbled in. From that point forward, a waiver was posted so TDs could use a Drop Zone on mandos until the rule was formally changed eliminating unwinding for mandos in the next rulebook update.