LCP, or aka, Preferred Lies.

The Captain calls for LCP (Lift, Clean, Place) anytime he thinks appropriate, but always only in the short, closely mown, grass. My tee shot hit the sloped green and spun back off the green onto the short grass, very near the cut line for the deep grass. No question that my ball rested on the short stuff but some long blades of grass were overhanging and touching my ball. I had a long up-hill putt, or chip, and now faced the long grass blades between the club face and back of ball.

My plan was to simply move the ball back off the short stuff onto the long grass and place it there within the 6" limit. My fellow players told me 'forbidden' coz the long grass was touching my ball. I thought they were looney coz i had never heard of such a thing.

I did not move the ball and chipped it close. I still think my LCP in that case was permitted. Do the RoG have rules on LCP?

Yes. But the rule does not refer to 'short stuff' but to 'part of the general area cut to fairway height or less'. The odd long blade is not relevant.

The rule does not prohibit moving the ball onto the 'long grass'.

Incidentally there is a rider to the Local Rule, but it does not directly affect your question. The use of this Local Rule outside the fairway in the general area is not recommended as it may result in a player receiving free relief from areas where a ball might otherwise be unplayable (such as in areas of bushes or trees).

Details can be found here under E-3

To add to Newby's observations, the key feature of Model Local Rule E-3, which many North Americans understand as LCP, is while the lift is limited to the closely mown, the place is anywhere in the general area within whatever is the prescribed distance (6 inches, 1 club-length or whatever) - which includes any rough or off-closely mown areas. So your fellow players are getting their elbows and central back/lower sections of their anatomies very confused. In plain speak, they don't know what they are talking about.

I've always felt it odd that the rules very specifically tell you whether your ball is on the green or not, as well as whether it is in any other particular area of the course, but they don't tell you specifically how to determine whether it's to be considered to lie on a part of the general area that's mown to fairway height or less. The definition of "lie" is further unhelpful in this regard:

"The spot on which a ball is at rest and any growing or attached natural object, immovable obstruction, integral object, or boundary object touching the ball or right next to it."

Based on the above, a ball sitting on the short grass and brushing the long grass right beside it is quite literally "lying" in both, as both are part of its lie.

That's not often an issue, but for the occasions when it is I wish they would state something similar to how you know your ball is on the putting green:

a. When Ball Is on Putting GreenA ball is on the putting green when any part of the ball:

Touches the putting green, orLies on or in anything (such as a loose impediment or an obstruction) and is inside the edge of the putting green.If part of the ball is both on the putting green and in another area of the course, see Rule 2.2c.

I view the on/off the fairway height grass issue the same way I'm told to view the putting green issue, but I don't believe I can point to a rule that justifies this.

By analogy with putting green, bunker and penalty area, imo.

That is indeed how we interpret it but I believe Sawgrass would like to have that written in the Rules due to existence of the concept 'area cut to fairway height or less' or commonly 'closely mown area'.

I witnessed this exact scenario at the 2018 BMW tournament. LCP was in place. It was really muddy. We were right next to the green when a player hit his ball on the fringe right up against the collar. Tough up and down. He simply picked it up and moved to the edge of the fringe and the green. Easy 2 putt for par.

Do the rules of golf define "fairway"? I looked and I don't see it defined. It should be defined in the rules.

Couldn't the committee modify model local rule E-5 to the effect of requiring the ball to be replaced in grass mown to fairway height or less if there was a desire to do so?

Its the perceived rules sticklers like described herein that make golf tough for new folks (not you). that lie as described 6" in any direction is still a tough shot more 90% of the people of golf due to the need for touch. It drives me crazy the nit picking sometimes. Oh and the added benefit of you were right all along...

New people need not play strictly by the rules if they don't wish to. And everyone is welcome to learn and/or discuss specifics if they want to.

But really, what the hell are you doing reading debates about the rules if you are offended by nit picking? Pretty much everything involves details. You are bound to remain unhappy.

As is, the local rule allows you to place the ball anywhere in the general area you wish (as long as you stay within the prescribed relief area). Are you wishing we were required to avoid placing it in the nearby rough? If so, I doubt the RBs would allow that as it makes a new unusual distinction/requirement regarding the height of the grass, and I suspect they'll feel things are confusing enough as they are. But one may always ask them for permission, and they'll tell you.

I'll also point out that it's possible that your revised rule would create a situation where there is no other place within the relief area that's both no closer and in the short grass, which would be unfortunate if you, perhaps, ended up in a divot hole right next to the edge of the rough.

I view the on/off the fairway height grass issue the same way I'm told to view the putting green issue, but I don't believe I can point to a rule that justifies this.

I agree. I've raised this in the past with senior State GA folk in the US and the response was "the consensus is....." then words along the lines we are discussing.

My club has tried to do this and written the rule as preferred lies in the general area within one scorecard length of the spot of the ball and within the same cut of grass where the ball originally came to rest. (Ex fairway to fairway, rough to rough, fringe to fringe).

I told them they cant make up rules but they dont seem to care. I'm happy at least that the whole tourney is playing it the same way.

I read the model local rules book as not requiring the model local rules to be taken verbatim, so long as they follow the principles outlined in the handbook, and I doubt the ruling bodies would take offense to a version of the rule attempting to keep the preferred lie closer to the original while keeping in line with the "fairway height" terminology suggested by the model local rule.

Is a committee that modifies a model local rule in such a fashion required to confirm it's legality with a ruling body? The guide says to ensure it follows the principles outlined, which could be taken as either 'seek confirmation' or 'take care to make sure of' and Im not sure which is meant here.

Quote: Is a committee that modifies a model local rule in such a fashion required to confirm it's legality with a ruling body? The guide says to ensure it follows the principles outlined, which could be taken as either 'seek confirmation' or 'take care to make sure of' and Im not sure which is meant here.

It would only require clearance through the State/National body if it is or maybe inconsistent with the published material. If changes are fully consistent, there is no need to consult. But the example of limiting preferred lies to the same cut of grass is inconsistent with the MLR and denies some player's their rights under the actual Rules and the approved MLR, so IMO any club wishing to do that should take their claimed reasoning to their governing body. And personally, I cannot think of any defensible justification. Such a distorted LR also reflects poorly on the intelligence of the particular Committee, because there are simple solutions that do not involve varying the Rules.

Int 16.1/1Relief from Abnormal Course Condition May Result in Better or Worse ConditionsIf a player receives a better lie, area of intended swing or line of play in taking relief under Rule 16.1, this is the player's good fortune. There is nothing in Rule 16.1that requires him or her to maintain identical conditions after relief is taken.

A local Rule which sought to limit preferred lie placement in the way suggested would, in my view, be contrary to this principle.

I'm not sure what the intelligence of the committee has to do with this. This whole concept was taboo to the USGA and RandA pre-2004 wasn't it? I think the subsequent paragraph better illustrates the point,

_"For example, in taking relief from a sprinkler head (immovable obstruction) in the rough, the player’s nearest point of complete relief or relief area may be located in the fairway. If this results in the player being able to drop a ball in the fairway, this is allowed."_

Further, reading the unauthorized local rule section makes me hesitant to believe a committee would be allowed to limit a relief area (except the rule does allow the committee to choose scorecard length, 6", clublength, etc)

However, could one not also consider a separate logic, that in general one must take relief in the same area of the course as where their ball had been? Though a fairway is not a separate area of the course, arguably _this rule treats it as one_ and therefore I don't see a tremendous inconsistency in restricting the relief area as such.

_"For example, in taking relief from a sprinkler head (immovable obstruction) in the rough, the player’s nearest point of complete relief or relief area may be located in the fairway. If this results in the player being able to drop a ball in the fairway, this is allowed."_Though a fairway is not a separate area of the course, arguably _this rule treats it as one_

This would seem to confirm they are not separate areas

Quote: However, could one not also consider a separate logic, that in general one must take relief in the same area of the course as where their ball had been? Though a fairway is not a separate area of the course, arguably _this rule treats it as one_ and therefore I don't see a tremendous inconsistency in restricting the relief area as such.

You could write up your proposed LR and send it in with this justification to see what the official reaction is.

There are some issues with this, the biggest one being it would make playing more complicated. The Nearest Point of Complete Relief would need to be in a similar area and not closer to the hole, if your ball lies on the fringe, resting against longer rough and the hole is on the very opposite side of the green. Your NPCR might be 40-50 yards away on the fairway or at the teeing ground of another hole. Then you'd need to figure out whether or not the teeing ground is cut to the same height as the fringe and fairway and if so, which one is closer to the original spot. That could make a much greater impact on how difficult the next shot is than the move from the fringe to the rough or vice versa.

Now, the reason you'd like to see the change is most probably due to fairness, right? In that case you'd need to treat such improvements for lie, area of intended swing and line of play similarly. One example is a tree blocking your way towards the green but an immovable obstruction obstructing your chip back onto the fairway. After taking relief from the obstruction, you have a clear shot to the green. Following that logic of fairness, the player should still chip the ball back onto the fairway. You would also need to change the Nearest Point of Complete Relief to actually Nearest Playable Point of Relief to remove any possible disadvantages one might face because of the relief. The whole issue is one big rabbit hole.

Also, clubs should seek approval for unauthorized Local Rules from the national association but I don't know how many do. I've read and heard of several, let's say, interesting local rules in use at clubs despite the authorized model local rules having been readily available and even translated for years.

I am awaiting appropriate information

From 8L:

In addition, Committees must not write a Local Rule that goes beyond the authorized Local Rules in ways which compromise the basic principles of the Rules of Golf. As examples, allowing players to use preferred lies throughout the general area or giving free relief from divot holes in the fairway compromise the basic principle under Rule 1.1 of playing the ball as it lies.

Seems they are indeed concerned with LR specifics regarding areas of the course. But there's already more written in this thread than would be required to ask someone with authority, as Newby has perhaps done. But if it were me, I'd go directly to the RBs so I could "keep" the answer with me wherever I go.

I have

This is with regards to a slight modification to the model local rule E-3, where it specifies the relief area as:

Reference Point: Spot of the original ball.

• Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: [specify size of relief area, such as one club-length, one scorecard length or 6 inches] from the reference point, but with these limits:

• Limits on Location of Relief Area:

» Must not be nearer the hole than the reference point, and

» Must be in (an area of) the general area (cut to fairway height or less.) <- my edits

This would not extend to relief from obstructions; there is no nearest point of complete relief for LCP. (If there were, one would have to drop in the rough, wouldn't they?). We sometimes encounter situations where a player is not able to take relief he is otherwise entitled to, like in bunkers where no relief area exists that is not closer to the hole. Except in apparently 2 cases; whether or not a player may take relief under this rule, and whether or not a player gets embedded ball relief in certain situations. So the areas are not separate when setting a ball down, but can be separate when deciding to pick one up.

Newby I am curious (if by appropriate information you mean a response from higher circles) what they will have to say on the matter.

Newby, would you care to share us with the exact wording of your quest? That is, just the question, so we know what you asked from R&A.

'This whole concept was taboo to the USGA and RandA pre-2004 wasn't it?'

James, what exactly are you referring to with the above text?

I have a hard time to follow what is the problem here or if there are more of them.

Placing a ball in a different lie it was picked up from is no news, that happens all the time (well, currently a ball is in most instances dropped but the principle is the same). So what is the big deal?

Determining whether a ball lies on the fairway or out of it is not covered by the Rules. That remains to be the question whether 'fairway' and 'lying on the fairway' should be defined in the Rules. IMO that would be an advantage as there are Local Rules using the term 'cut to fairway height or less'.

I had read that before 2004 the ruling bodies would not interpret/consider/accept anything to do with preferred lies winter rules. Whether this is relevant is debatable, but I meant this as being relatively new in the rules of golf altogether.

As far as the problem, or what I interpret as the problem, is that, for sake of argument, the fairway is a more desirable place to find one's ball than the rough. I know this is in a different context, but in another thread you said "and rough is not to be regarded as an area where balls should lie in normal play." LCP is introduced as a necessary evil for when a player cannot be assured a reasonable lie provided that the ball lies in the fairway. (And only in the fairway)

But by being able to place the ball, the player can remove the randomness of the rough and place his ball in a lie superior to one he could ever reasonably expect from fairway or rough altogether (tufted, cupcake lie). From my understanding, the ability to pinpoint lie via placing is why the rb's kept the knee drop for 2019 instead of place anywhere.

Some may be of the opinion that such an improvement by placement is not the intent of LCP. A potential solution was to require placement in the fairway. I have turned it into a 'can a committee make that change' question (The answer is probably not, but it's still fun to talk about).

(All of the above, and more, is why I prefer to play without LCP whenever possible.)

"Some may be of the opinion that such an improvement by placement is not the intent of LCP. A potential solution was to require placement in the fairway."

A solution to an unintended-by-the-rules LCP "improved lie" possibility is to require placement in the fairway? I sincerely believe you're creating a problem where none exists.

And . . . IMO an improved lie is the very purpose of LCP, otherwise one would just select lift clean replace as the LR.