Rules Comment: Mandatory takes precedence over OB

[Kenny B]

While recently playing a casual round with a friend, we found that we did not have a complete understanding of mandatories. Specifically, that missing a mandatory takes precedence over out of bounds.

First here’s the rule…

803.12
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.
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.

Now, here’s an application that I did not previously understand…When you take a throw that first goes out of bounds and then subsequently misses a mandatory, the next shot is taken from the mando’s drop zone with a one penalty throw. This is always the case whenever a mando is missed; it doesn't matter if you went OB or not and it doesn't matter where you went OB. Your next shot is always taken from the mando drop zone because mandos take precedence.

Finally a real life course example…Ft. Steilacoom SE hole 1. This hole plays from the heli-pad, over the road, in between two OB strung lines, both of which stop at mando trees. The strung line on the left ends at a very large mando tree that is near the teepad for SE hole 3. So if your throw from the teepad crosses the OB string line on the left 80 feet short of the mando tree and continues over the OB area until it passes the mando tree on the bad side (left side) and comes to rest beyond the mando tree, then your next shot is taken from the mando tree’s drop zone and NOT from where it was last in bounds (in this example 80 feet behind the mando tree).

I have a good feeling that this rule has not been correctly followed on this hole fairly frequently during PDGA tournaments.

Any thoughts?

[Chuck Kennedy]

You are correct. Here's the Q&A and graphic I produced on the topic for the PDGA:
http://www.pdga.com/faq/rules-questions-answers/missed-the-mandatory-went-ob

[Yardbird]

Why doesn't the first penalty take precedence?

If you throw OB first, then the point that the disc was last inbounds is the last time the disc was in "play". The fact that you missed the mando doesn't apply yet. You haven't technically missed the mando. Shouldn't the disc be in "play" while it misses the mando?

[Joshua Olmsted]

I believe you're incorrect on the Steilly SE hole 1 point. Once it goes out of bounds 80 feet short of the mando tree it's out. That's where your shot comes in at. The Mando exception is only where a mando object is completely inside of an OB zone and the shot misses the mando and continues on to an OB zone, this is fairly clear from Chuck's graphic, I don't think it's the same example as Steilly hole one. This would give you an extra 80 feet that you wouldn't get. Though it would be nice if a rules official who knows Steilacoom SE hole 1 to chime in on this.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Your disc cannot be declared OB until it lands. If you cross the wrong side of the mando line, you will have missed the mando (and don't come back across it such as hitting a tree and rebounding) then you have missed the mando before having officially gone OB if that's where your disc lands. In the Steilly example, if your disc stops in the OB BEFORE crossing the wrong side of the mando line, then you are OB and mark according to OB rules. However, if your disc is flying over the OB area and it continues to cross the wrong side of the mando line, then you will have missed the mando and go to the drop zone.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Your disc cannot be declared OB until it lands. If you cross the wrong side of the mando line, you will have missed the mando (and don't come back across it such as hitting a tree and rebounding) then you have missed the mando before having officially gone OB if that's where your disc lands. In the Steilly example, if your disc stops in the OB BEFORE crossing the wrong side of the mando line, then you are OB and mark according to OB rules. However, if your disc is flying over the OB area and it continues to cross the wrong side of the mando line, then you will have missed the mando and go to the drop zone.

That makes sense, since it is perfectly OK to fly over OB as long as you land in bounds.

[ericedge]

The scenario at steilly is a little different than the picture on the pdga site. The OB line extends from the mando tree back toward the tee but does not extend from the mando toward the basket. In some ways I would say that instead of the tree being a mando the OB line itself is the mando. If the OB line extends from the tee pad all the way to the tree and you had to take your next shot from the point where you crossed the line (w/ penalty) then you wouldn't even have to declare the tree a mando. The area on the far side of the OB line isn't actually OB itself since it would be possible to throw around the tree on the right side and bounce, roll or skip back into that area without ever crossing over the line. To me it would make sense to skip calling the tree a mando and just say you must take a lie (w/ meter relief) from where you crossed the line. The same rule would apply on every shot, not just the tee shot.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Maybe it would make sense to not have the tree as a mando. Hard to tell from what I've read so far. However, if the tree stays a mando, if a throw actually misses it (and stays on the missed side) then the player plays from the drop zone regardless whether the disc ends up OB or not.

One interesting scenario would be if a roller crosses the good side of the mando line and curls around the tree and comes back across the wrong side of the mando line towards the tee, rolls thru OB but rolls just far enough to end up back inbounds. The player has officially made the mando and can throw around the right side of the tree (wrong side of the mando) on the next shot if they wish.

[ericedge]

I guess my question would be... can a line be a mando instead of an OB line? In the situation at Steilly you can't miss the mando tree without also crossing the OB line. In most cases the disc crosses the line and doesn't pass the mando tree so the player just takes the next shot from where the disc crossed the line. I think it's odd that a disc could potentially be sitting at rest and in one scenario be OB and in another be IB. The more I think about it the more I think there is no reason to make the tree a mando and no reason to have a drop zone. Just call the line itself the mando in this particular situation.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I think you need to draw the scenario. There's not really a way to prevent players from throwing across a line and over an OB area unless there's a vertical mando pole or tree that penalizes shots in a certain direction.

[olydiscgolf]

IMO, the mando tree on SE 1, at Steilly is the best way to end an OB line. This is one Mando that is "OK" because its very cut and dried as to if you make it or not.

The only issue that Im now seeing with it, is that the mando should have another line perpendicular to the OB line. This way you will know if you missed the mando(throw from drop zone), or your throw went OB(throw from where it crossed OB).

[ericedge]

Here's a stab at an illustration of the hole...



A. is a safe shot.

B. flies over the "OB" line and ends up past the mando tree.

C. flies past the safe side of the mando tree but hits some branches and ends up near the "OB" line and short of the mando line. A very unlikely shot, but possible.

D. flies over the OB line and ends up short of the mando. A common result.

I made the mando line perpendicular to the line of play, not perpendicular to the OB line.

My question is why have the tree be a mando at all. If the "OB" line is instead called a "mando line" then any shot that crosses it and stays across would be taken at the point it went out with a meter relief and a stroke. With the tree mando in effect player "B" would end up with a much easier shot from the DZ than the spot where player "D" went out despite the fact that he crossed the line much earlier. If the tree is not a mando then any shot over the line plays from the point it crossed over and there's no discussion about where the mando line is located.

It's also interesting that shots "C" and "D" can end up in basically the same spot but one is OB and the other is not.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I think the idea to make the vertical OB line the "missed mando" line is the way to go. The key though is to mark the drop zone maybe 30 feet to the right of the little tree that throw D just passed or even back towward the tee a little more. The designer can mark the drop zone anywhere, not necessarily the conventional spot next to the mando object. The "good mando" line could go horizontally across the fairway from the mando tree. There's no rule that the mando line goes straight thru the mando on both sides as long as the good side and bad side lines are well marked.

Since the mando lines continue indefinitely, it's possible for some to yank into the road and sometimes miss the mando while being in the street or actually end up OB if it's in the street short of the missed mando line.

[ericedge]

Moving the DZ back might help. One thing this illustration doesn't show is that this is a fairly long hole and just getting past the mando tree is a heck of a shot. My point of eliminating the mando tree is to simplify things. There would be no need for a DZ at all, just take the shots that cross the line from where they went out. There is good visibility from the Tee and from my experience it's pretty easy for groups to agree where the shot went out. In this case it would be clear that shot "C" would be safe and shooting directly at the basket and shot "D" would be shooting 3 from where they went out. Shot "B" would be bummed to have to go back to where they went over the line.

[cefire]

The real problem is Mike Cain because then he could hyzerbomb that hole - I'm just joking because I don't really know the hole you guys are all talking about but it seems OB and mandatories do two different things.

One dictates where a player can land and the other which line he/she can take to get there

Without a mandatory (again I don't know this hole that well) could different shots work on the drive or approach that would essentially change the hole (changes can be good/bad but should recognize that changing a mandatory is indeed changing how the hole is played by now allowing right to left moving shots which run over OB but land IB)

The solution which might preserve the original intent of this hole (if that is the best option) it seems would be to clearly mark where the OB line ends. If you correctly navigate the mandatory, but land in OB, you deserve a penalty just the same as anyone who misses the mandatory.

[Sausage Fingers]

Where in the rules is there mention of a Mando 'line'?

[ericedge]

I know there is no such thing as a mando "line". What I'm saying is that there are areas of playing surface on this hole that are OB if you get there by one line and IB if you get there by another. By saying that the line (and not the tree) is a mando then you get penalized for crossing in front of the tree which is the intent of the rule. The penalty could be a DZ or it could be play it from where it went out. If the tree is going to be played as a mando then it would be important to paint the mando line to the left of the tree so that it's obvious to see if it's been crossed.

[olydiscgolf]

I understand the point Edgie, why be penalized for taking one route or another that both end in the same place, but, SE1 at Steilly uses the Mando "tree" for safety. You end up throwing right at the teepad for SE 3 if you take out the mando.

[Tim]

Right, and I think Eric is still saying that you'd have to steer clear of that. But the OB line running up to the mando is the thing that compounds the situation. In most other mando situations, you can be short of the mando and to the "wrong" side, but still be able to play your lie with no penalty (other than being in a shitty situation). Here, you can be short of the mando and be OB, whereas another shot could fly on the good side of the mando, and roll backwards to end up at the same spot, but not be OB. If there were an actual river or road there, both discs would be OB, but here it's just an artificial boundary.

I can see the logic behind making the line a mando, but I think it'd just be more confusing for most people. Shot C probably happens in such a low percentage that most people wouldn't question it, and if it did happen, it'd just be one of those oddities.

Of course, there's always the easy solution of taking the OB line away (I promise I wouldn't complain).

[Chuck Kennedy]

The vertical line is either an OB line or a missed mando line. There's no need for it to be both. If it's a mando line, then you can't have the drop zone as the last point a disc crosses it. That's only possible if it's an OB line. There can only be one drop zone for missing a mando. If it's an OB line then that will not prevent shots from being thrown to the left of the tree. An alternative to the option I proposed for moving back the drop zone would be to add another OB line to your drawing. If you had an OB line that went from the mando tree diagonally up to the left toward 10 or 11 o'clock, then shots C & D would be OB and be marked based on OB rules and shot B would have missed the mando and go to the drop zone. Only shot A would be inbounds.