2019 Rules of Golf

[Mr. Bean]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

Take it easy, Sawgrass, your blood pressure is sky high! :DD

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

There is absolutely no point in discussing how the Rule is written as we can all read. The issue is whether that was the intent from the RB's, and for that we are all awaiting an official standpoint from them.

[rogolf]

I think that Old Course #1 (Swilcan Burn) is still an issue due to the varying direction/location of the burn relative to the hole location and predict that both of these holes will still be marked with yellow penalty areas.

 

I go along with your prediction of the marking, but what would be the point if one could still drop on the green side of the Burn..?

 

Under the Rules, dropping on the green side of the burn might be possible in some rare circumstances, but it will not be common.

[rogolf]

If a player's ball is embedded in the general area but neither the reference point nor any part of the course within one club-length of the reference point is in the general area .....

 

Yes, this is yet another implication that a reference point in one area of the course can provide a relief area in another area of the course.

 

I had the impression that this new 'correction' meant that there is no free relief area in such a case. With no relief area can there be a reference point?

 

I fail to see the connection, especially to the yellow PA case.

 

Today I had a chat with one of our national referees who was present in St. Andrews early this year where national associations' selected members were explained the changes to come. Also it was explained why some changes that were earlier considered to be part of the Rules were discarded. One of those is the idea of all Penalty Areas to be red. R&A stated that there are certain reasons why red PA could give a player an undeserved advantage by changing the character of certain types of holes and thus yellow PA's were decided to be preserved along with the red ones.

 

On that occasion R&A presented two examples of such holes that would change their character towards undesired direction. One was the St. Andrews Old Course hole #1 and the other Augusta hole #12. With the omission of opposite margin relief Old Course #1 is no longer an issue but Augusta #12 remains...

 

Did you ask him about the yellow penalty area scenario that we've been discussing here?

 

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

They could all be wrong on that position.

Maybe they could/should seek clarification from their Committees and ultimately the R&A?

[Sawgrass]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

 

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

 

 

I was once right, so I’m probably right this time?

 

Not up to your typical logical standards, sir.

[Colin L]

If a player's ball is embedded in the general area but neither the reference point nor any part of the course within one club-length of the reference point is in the general area .....

 

Yes, this is yet another implication that a reference point in one area of the course can provide a relief area in another area of the course.

 

I had the impression that this new 'correction' meant that there is no free relief area in such a case. With no relief area can there be a reference point?

I fail to see the connection, especially to the yellow PA case.

 

I'm relieved that Sawgrass sees the connection .....which is just that this clarification refers, without qualification, to a reference point being in another part of the course than the general area and thus connects with this discussion as to whether the reference point for back on the line relief from a penalty area can be in another part of the course than the general area i.e. the penalty area.

 

Yes, you can have a reference point that leads to there being no relief area. That is the whole point of that clarification.

[Mr. Bean]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

 

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

 

 

I was once right, so I’m probably right this time?

 

Not up to your typical logical standards, sir.

 

I may have written that unclearly...

 

What I meant was that all the referees in my country I had spoken with felt R9.4b was incorrect, and indeed it was changed and clarified. All of us (in my country) reasoned that if the idea was to simplify the Rules and lessen the penalties that Rule could not have been correctly written, as it turned out not to have been.

 

Same thing applies here. We (all in my country) can read the text but have serious doubts whether the text corresponds to the idea behind it.

 

Sawgrass, this is by no means a personal quest nor a test but an effort to get clarity to a Rule that has raised up so many questions before it is even in force. So, let us all cool down and wait for an answer from the RB's, who have been contacted by a multitude of parties.

[Mr. Bean]

If a player's ball is embedded in the general area but neither the reference point nor any part of the course within one club-length of the reference point is in the general area .....

 

Yes, this is yet another implication that a reference point in one area of the course can provide a relief area in another area of the course.

 

I had the impression that this new 'correction' meant that there is no free relief area in such a case. With no relief area can there be a reference point?

I fail to see the connection, especially to the yellow PA case.

 

I'm relieved that Sawgrass sees the connection .....which is just that this clarification refers, without qualification, to a reference point being in another part of the course than the general area and thus connects with this discussion as to whether the reference point for back on the line relief from a penalty area can be in another part of the course than the general area i.e. the penalty area.

 

Yes, you can have a reference point that leads to there being no relief area. That is the whole point of that clarification.

 

But the ball in that clarification was in the General Area. In the yellow PA situation it is not.

 

Alas, this discussion is leading nowhere and I will stop here and wait for the next clarification from the RB's.

[Colin L]

 

Take it easy, Sawgrass, your blood pressure is sky high! :DD

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

In what way was 9.4b said to be incorrect and in what way was it corrected? I must have been asleep when it happened.

 

 

There is absolutely no point in discussing how the Rule is written as we can all read. The issue is whether that was the intent from the RB's, and for that we are all awaiting an official standpoint from them.

 

That is an astonishing statement. The "issue" with any rule is what the words say. That's the beginning and end of understanding a rule. We cannot invent something other than what they say based on second-guessing the "intention" of the rule-makers.

 

I'm well used to how complicated some of the discussions here can get and how far from a clear understanding of something really quite straightforward they can take us. This one is becoming a vintage specimen!

[Sawgrass]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

 

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

 

 

I was once right, so I’m probably right this time?

 

Not up to your typical logical standards, sir.

 

I may have written that unclearly...

 

What I meant was that all the referees in my country I had spoken with felt R9.4b was incorrect, and indeed it was changed and clarified. All of us (in my country) reasoned that if the idea was to simplify the Rules and lessen the penalties that Rule could not have been correctly written, as it turned out not to have been.

 

Same thing applies here. We (all in my country) can read the text but have serious doubts whether the text corresponds to the idea behind it.

 

Sawgrass, this is by no means a personal quest nor a test but an effort to get clarity to a Rule that has raised up so many questions before it is even in force. So, let us all cool down and wait for an answer from the RB's, who have been contacted by a multitude of parties.

The thing in your recent writings that I'm most confused about is why you think I'm upset!

 

I also am unclear as to what happened with 9.4b, I'd very much like to know.

 

As to the main issue here, I think everyone is awaiting a reaction from the RB's. For what it's worth, my senior ref friends in a USGA "Allied Golf Association" are in disagreement with your refs, so we're in a "tie" so far . . .

 

If/when I hear something definitive, I will join those here who pledge to pass it on.

[nsxguy]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

Take it easy, Sawgrass, your blood pressure is sky high! :DD

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

There is absolutely no point in discussing how the Rule is written as we can all read. The issue is whether that was the intent from the RB's, and for that we are all awaiting an official standpoint from them.

 

The thing in your recent writings that I'm most confused about is why you think I'm upset!

 

I'm guessing it's what he quoted. :D

[Colin L]

Keeping it simple.

 

Reference Point

A point on the course chosen by the player that is on the reference line and is further from the hole than the estimated point (with no limit how far back on the line)

[Rule 17-1d (2)]

 

Can anyone tell me in what way this statement that the reference point is on the course means that it cannot be in a penalty area, given that a penalty area is a part of the course?

 

 

And, by the way, all the referees here agree with me. (I took myself aside and asked.)

[Newby]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

[Sawgrass]

FWIW, ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

Toss them a rulebook and have them show you why you cannot!

 

Take it easy, Sawgrass, your blood pressure is sky high! :DD

 

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

 

There is absolutely no point in discussing how the Rule is written as we can all read. The issue is whether that was the intent from the RB's, and for that we are all awaiting an official standpoint from them.

 

The thing in your recent writings that I'm most confused about is why you think I'm upset!

 

I'm guessing it's what he quoted. :D

Do you really think that my suggestion to refer to the rulebook is evidence of my being upset? You should see me when I'm upset!

[nsxguy]

Keeping it simple.

 

Reference Point

A point on the course chosen by the player that is on the reference line and is further from the hole than the estimated point (with no limit how far back on the line)

[Rule 17-1d (2)]

 

Can anyone tell me in what way this statement that the reference point is on the course means that it cannot be in a penalty area, given that a penalty area is a part of the course?

 

 

And, by the way, all the referees here agree with me. (I took myself aside and asked.)

 

LOL

 

There is no definition I can find for "Reference Point". The closest I can figure out is "the point from which you measure your relief". Descriptions of "reference point" however, would seem to suggest the phrase (also ?) being taken literally; i.e. as a point of reference from which we will proceed further.

 

Anywho, to answer your question though, no, I cannot tell you that it means the reference point can not be in a penalty area.

 

But I would then ask, why all the reference points in the diagrams for Rule 17 are NOT in PAs and/or why ANY descriptions suggest (or not) that the RP CAN be in a PA ?

 

Also, if the RP CAN be in a PA, why then a) it isn't stated as such and b) why would the relief instructions specifically say you can not drop in the same PA.

 

By those statements and diagrams I would think it would indicate, even though not specifically stated, that the RP can NOT be in a PA

 

16.3b for embedded ball, also brought up here, seems to suggest the RP CAN be in a bunker but a bunker, while not being part of the "general area", is also not a PA

 

 

(Clarification) Rule 16.3b:

 

1. Player Not Always Allowed to Take Embedded Ball Relief:

 

If a player’s ball is embedded in the general area but neither the reference point nor any part of the course within one club-length of the reference point is in the general area, the player is not allowed to take free relief under Rule 16.3b.

 

For example, free relief is not allowed if:

- a ball is embedded at the very base of the lip, wall or face above a bunker,

- the spot right behind the ball is in the bunker and

- within one club-length of and not nearer the hole from that reference point, there is no part of the relief area that is in the general area. (Added 12/2018)

 

 

This seems to indicate quite clearly that the RP CAN be in a bunker however, a bunker is NOT a PA. :wacko:

[Colin L]

You should see me when I'm upset!

 

I think I'd rather not. May I be excused?

[Colin L]

Keeping it simple.

 

Reference Point

A point on the course chosen by the player that is on the reference line and is further from the hole than the estimated point (with no limit how far back on the line)

[Rule 17-1d (2)]

 

Can anyone tell me in what way this statement that the reference point is on the course means that it cannot be in a penalty area, given that a penalty area is a part of the course?

 

 

And, by the way, all the referees here agree with me. (I took myself aside and asked.)

 

LOL

 

There is no definition I can find for "Reference Point". The closest I can figure out is "the point from which you measure your relief". Descriptions of "reference point" however, would seem to suggest the phrase (also ?) being taken literally; i.e. as a point of reference from which we will proceed further.

 

Anywho, to answer your question though, no, I cannot tell you that it means the reference point can not be in a penalty area.

 

But I would then as, why all the reference points in the diagrams for Rule 17 are NOT in PAs and/or why ANY descriptions suggest (or not) that the RP CAN be in a PA ?

 

Also, if the RP CAN be in a PA, why then a) it isn't stated as such and b) why would the relief instructions specifically say you can not drop in the same PA.

 

By those statements and diagrams I would think it would indicate, even though not specifically stated, that the RP can NOT be in a PA

 

16.3b for embedded ball, also brought up here, seems to suggest the RP CAN be in a bunker but a bunker, while not being part of the "general area", is also not a PA

 

 

(Clarification) Rule 16.3b:

 

1. Player Not Always Allowed to Take Embedded Ball Relief:

 

If a player’s ball is embedded in the general area but neither the reference point nor any part of the course within one club-length of the reference point is in the general area, the player is not allowed to take free relief under Rule 16.3b.

 

For example, free relief is not allowed if:

- a ball is embedded at the very base of the lip, wall or face above a bunker,

- the spot right behind the ball is in the bunker and

- within one club-length of and not nearer the hole from that reference point, there is no part of the relief area that is in the general area. (Added 12/2018)

 

 

This seems to indicate quite clearly that the RP CAN be in a bunker however, a bunker is NOT a PA. :wacko:

 

This is the kind of over-complication I was referring to. Neither the absence of a diagram nor the absence of a statement about a particular (and unusual) situation can be taken to signify anything. You just can't leap from the absence of a diagram to the inference that what is not illustrated is not allowed. The rule is what the words tell you it is.

 

My reference to the clarification of 16.3b (which I'm beginning to regret!) was just to provide another example of where the rules contemplate a reference point in one of the other areas of the course than the general area.

[Mr. Bean]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

[Mr. Bean]

Keeping it simple.

 

Reference Point

A point on the course chosen by the player that is on the reference line and is further from the hole than the estimated point (with no limit how far back on the line)

[Rule 17-1d (2)]

 

Can anyone tell me in what way this statement that the reference point is on the course means that it cannot be in a penalty area, given that a penalty area is a part of the course?

 

 

And, by the way, all the referees here agree with me. (I took myself aside and asked.)

 

Colin, I have read your posts for years and always greatly respected your views but unfortunately now I need to say that you are lowering your standards...

 

Nobody here (nor in my country) is disagreeing what is written in the Rules but what is supposed to be written. These two are completely different things, and for that dilemma we are expecting an answer from the RB's.

[Newby]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

 

You say it is a change. A change from what to what? How is a clarification a change unless it actually changes something.

 

I am also sure there will be many more clarifications and changes

[rogolf]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

I'm quite certain that "you" were not alone in raising the question regarding that matter; I know we did also. We also raised the issue with the embedded ball, and I'm sure we weren't the only ones on that either.

"Getting it right" is a communal project.

[Mr. Bean]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

 

You say it is a change. A change from what to what? How is a clarification a change unless it actually changes something.

 

https://www.randa.or...ations#1-3c-4-4

 

Compare that to the 1st clarification in the Clarification Document Updated December 18th 2018.

[Mr. Bean]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

I'm quite certain that "you" were not alone in raising the question regarding that matter; I know we did also. We also raised the issue with the embedded ball, and I'm sure we weren't the only ones on that either.

"Getting it right" is a communal project.

 

C'mon!! We all are raising these issues to the RB's and I am certainly not trying to take the honor of something being changed! All I am trying to say that the criticism our referees in my country have sent and impressed to the RB's has not been unjustified.

 

Repeating and explaining self-explanatory things is getting tiresome and for that reason I stop here.

[Colin L]

Keeping it simple.

 

Reference Point

A point on the course chosen by the player that is on the reference line and is further from the hole than the estimated point (with no limit how far back on the line)

[Rule 17-1d (2)]

 

Can anyone tell me in what way this statement that the reference point is on the course means that it cannot be in a penalty area, given that a penalty area is a part of the course?

 

 

And, by the way, all the referees here agree with me. (I took myself aside and asked.)

 

Colin, I have read your posts for years and always greatly respected your views but unfortunately now I need to say that you are lowering your standards...

 

Nobody here (nor in my country) is disagreeing what is written in the Rules but what is supposed to be written. These two are completely different things, and for that dilemma we are expecting an answer from the RB's.

 

Lowering my standards? Thankfully, I've no idea what you mean - and don't really want to know!

 

 

I am finding it a bit difficult to reconcile what you are saying now

Nobody here (nor in my country) is disagreeing what is written in the Rules......

with what you said earlier.

ALL the referees around here say that a reference point CANNOT be in the same PA one is taking relief from, also those who are currently members of various EGA Committees.

[Newby]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

 

You say it is a change. A change from what to what? How is a clarification a change unless it actually changes something.

 

https://www.randa.or...ations#1-3c-4-4

 

Compare that to the 1st clarification in the Clarification Document Updated December 18th 2018.

Thanks

[Sawgrass]

 

I am also sure there will be many more clarifications and changes

 

Impossible! They'd NEVER change the Rules of Golf!

[rogolf]

[

C'mon!! We all are raising these issues to the RB's and I am certainly not trying to take the honor of something being changed! All I am trying to say that the criticism our referees in my country have sent and impressed to the RB's has not been unjustified.

 

Repeating and explaining self-explanatory things is getting tiresome and for that reason I stop here.

 

It's unfortunate that you may feel slighted by some replies to your posts. However, your post which included this - -" Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !" could be viewed as bragging about your accomplishments, and, as such, may not be well-received. I hope that you can understand this and that you will continue to contribute your knowledge to this forum.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

[QEight]

[

C'mon!! We all are raising these issues to the RB's and I am certainly not trying to take the honor of something being changed! All I am trying to say that the criticism our referees in my country have sent and impressed to the RB's has not been unjustified.

 

Repeating and explaining self-explanatory things is getting tiresome and for that reason I stop here.

 

It's unfortunate that you may feel slighted by some replies to your posts. However, your post which included this - -" Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !" could be viewed as bragging about your accomplishments, and, as such, may not be well-received. I hope that you can understand this and that you will continue to contribute your knowledge to this forum.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

 

"All of us around here" can mean e.g. this forum and/or referee community in general. Not just Mr. Bean in his Mini. Just saying.

[antip]

/quote]I'm seeing what I think is some unclear and confused language relating to red and yellow penalty areas.

 

Some facts are:

1) red penalty areas offer relief options that precisely match those that yellow offers. And they have one extra - lateral relief.

 

2) if you are taking BOL relief from red or yellow, the reference point is any BOL point (but such a point does not mean a relief area will be available from that reference point).

 

Not sure what you mean by BOL "point". There is a reference LINE going back from the point the ball last crossed (the "estimated point"). The reference point for YELLOW is where the player chooses to drop along the reference line. The reference point for RED is the "estimated point" the ball last crossed.

 

2nd part - don't understand what you mean by "such a point does not mean a relief area will be available from that reference point". The whole point of finding the reference point is to take the appropriate relief.

 

 

 

3) if you are taking BOL relief from red or yellow, the nearest reference point to the point where the ball last crossed the edge will be right next to it. It is in the PA by definition.

 

Right next to it ? You mean right behind it, no ?

 

 

4) when you take BOL relief from a RED PA, you create a relief area using the reference point. If you use the reference point right next to where ball last crossed the edge, it is highly likely the potential relief area (the semi-circle) will be larger than the available relief area (available relief area is that part of the potential area that is outside the PA).

 

BOL from RED PA you choose a 2nd reference point anywhere behind the 1st, as far back as you want. That then becomes the reference point for your relief area, 1 CL either side of the (now) RP.

 

 

5) Yellow PA offers precisely the same BOL relief as the red PA, so precisely the same potential relief area exists for BOL relief taken from that reference point closest to the point of last crossing the edge. The ONLY difference between this yellow and red relief is the available relief area (that part of the potential relief area that is not in the PA) will highly likely be much smaller for a yellow PA (or even zero) because it is likely to be much closer to 90 degrees to the line of the hole while red is likely to be much closer to parallel.

 

I keep trying to picture why it is "highly likely" that BOL relief area for a yellow PA would be smaller than a BOL RA for a red area.

 

 

My key point here is there is nothing in the published new rules that constrains BOL relief from being on the green side of the penalty area, regardless of whether we are talking red or yellow penalty areas. And red or yellow is irrelevant when we are comparing BOL relief taken from the reference point closest to where the ball last crossed the edge of the PA.

 

I agree and that's the crux of the issue we've come up with BUT the Rules DO give lateral relief options so if the estimated point the ball last crossed a RED PA then it is pretty clear the player can drop on the green side. The issue is whether or not he can do that for a YELLOW PA which NOW, he can not. One might think the principle of having to go BACK over the yellow hazard would have been kept in the new Rules and, if not, one might also wonder why it wasn't highlighted as a major(?) change.

 

 

Now I'll add one further observation. There is virtually zero difference, for red penalty area relief, between BOL relief and lateral relief for the first club length of the relief area (lateral relief is larger overall, because it is 2CL versus 1CL) when the BOL relief is taken from the closest possible point to where the ball last crossed the edge. The only difference in the first club-length is that there is the tiniest difference in the reference points. Lateral relief: reference point is precisely point of last crossing; BOL relief reperence point is immediately behind that point. AND BOTH REFERENCE POINTS ARE IN THE PENALTY AREA BY DEFINITION.

 

Don't see where the Red relief area is larger overall. Yellow RA is 1 CL either side of the RP, total of 2 CLs. Red RA is 2 CLs from the RP, also a total of 2 CLs. The depth of the RA is measured from the middle backwards, I assume 1 CL as well.

 

Speaking of which, I assume the DEPTH of the RA, behind the RP, is 1 CL, yes ? I can't seem to find that spelled out. And a semi-circle ? Wonder why they didn't just measure like a teeing ground, a rectangle, just to make it easier ? I can just see someone gaming someone else by saying, if the guy drops near one of the edges that he dropped outside the semi-circle. LOL

 

And again you say BOTH reference points (or at least the red one, 'cause the yellow one certainly ISN'T) are in the PA "by definition". Could you kindly point out that definition in the Rules ? Thanks.

 

This is what the published rules state. If Ruling Bodies did not intend for yellow PA BOL relief to be available from the green side of the PA, they need to issue some directives or make some rule changes. And also keep in mind, even now under the current rules BOL relief can be taken on the green side of a penalty area (water hazard) for the red ones.

 

Unless I'm mistaken which is a definite possibility, I think you may be adding to the confusion. See above in blue.

 

And as mentioned above,,,,,,,,, a MAIN issue here is whether or not the player can drop on the green side of a yellow PA.

 

One might think the principle of having to go over the yellow hazard would have been kept in the new Rules. If not one would have to wonder why it was not highlighted as a major(?) change. I mean why else would there BE a yellow PA then ? If one didn't have to hit back over it why wouldn't it just be a red PA ?

There is probably too much to explain here to do it in one go but on your queries on 2. BOL point was not clear, I agree, I meant reference point on the BOL line. A key theme of my post was that if your ball has crossed a PA and come 'back' into it, that is, the point where you last crossed the edge is on the green side of a PA, AND you take BOL relief using a reference point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge of the PA, it makes no difference it is a red or yellow PA because precisely the same processes apply. You misunderstand BOL relief from a red PA if you think it uses a different reference point. The ONLY time the point of last crossing the edge of the PA is relevant for red PA relief is when you take lateral relief (17.1d(3)).

 

More generally, reference points are the tool to proceeding under many rules, but the reference point does not guarantee that a relief area exists that complies with the restrictions in that rule.

 

For No.3, yes I mean right behind it.

 

On No. 4, I don't get your point. I am only comparing red and yellow PA, player taking BOL relief AND using a reference point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge. My post is only talking of this specific situation, and seeking to identify the implications. Specifically, red and yellow PAs are identical in this situation, so this thread's discussion of yellow PA is inappropriately narrow.

 

On No 5, because yellow PAs cross the line of play and red PA are mostly parallel to the line of play. Simple geometry after that.

 

Now dealing with the reference points being in the PA: I thought this was very straightforward. if it is Red PA and you are taking lateral relief (17.1d(3)), your reference point is where you last crossed the edge of the PA - so that crossing point is in the PA. Think red paint line, point where you last crossed is on the paint line. The paint line is in the PA. That is how the edge of the PA is defined. If it is either red or yellow PA and you are taking BOL relief from the point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge, that point also MUST be in the PA.

 

If you have any further queries, please ask.

[antip]

Well, all of us around here said also that the 9.4b was incorrect and look what happened! It got CORRECTED !

What was the change? I just checked against the April draft and can't see a change.

 

It is the first change in the Clarification (Updated 18th December, 2018) , title is Rule 1.3c(4) and it refers to Rule 9.4.

 

EDIT: And you cannot see the changes in the Book as it is just a Clarification... and there will be many more, I can assure you..

 

You say it is a change. A change from what to what? How is a clarification a change unless it actually changes something.

 

https://www.randa.or...ations#1-3c-4-4

 

Compare that to the 1st clarification in the Clarification Document Updated December 18th 2018.

Mr Bean

There is zero change. The Interpretation you cite (to identify it correctly - Int 1.3c(4)/4)is an entirely different situation and nothing is changing. That interpretation deals with very specific elements (it is an adaptation of the situation in Int 1.3c(4)/2) and, most importantly, deals with unrelated acts. In that specific situation, failure to replace will produce a separate wrong place penalty. The simple nudge and fail to replace scenario are related acts, therefore that is general penalty only (not 1+2SP). This can't be repeated enough: NO rule has changed and NO interpretation has changed. RBs have simply responded (correctly) that many people were misapplying Int 1.3c(4)/4 to the simple nudge and fail to replace scenario.

 

If RBs could have the time over, I am certain they would have included something very close to the new clarification as an additional interpretation and avoided all this angst, which seems to have been particularly prevalent in Finland.

[nsxguy]

/quote]I'm seeing what I think is some unclear and confused language relating to red and yellow penalty areas.

 

Some facts are:

1) red penalty areas offer relief options that precisely match those that yellow offers. And they have one extra - lateral relief.

 

2) if you are taking BOL relief from red or yellow, the reference point is any BOL point (but such a point does not mean a relief area will be available from that reference point).

 

Not sure what you mean by BOL "point". There is a reference LINE going back from the point the ball last crossed (the "estimated point"). The reference point for YELLOW is where the player chooses to drop along the reference line. The reference point for RED is the "estimated point" the ball last crossed.

 

2nd part - don't understand what you mean by "such a point does not mean a relief area will be available from that reference point". The whole point of finding the reference point is to take the appropriate relief.

 

 

 

3) if you are taking BOL relief from red or yellow, the nearest reference point to the point where the ball last crossed the edge will be right next to it. It is in the PA by definition.

 

Right next to it ? You mean right behind it, no ?

 

 

4) when you take BOL relief from a RED PA, you create a relief area using the reference point. If you use the reference point right next to where ball last crossed the edge, it is highly likely the potential relief area (the semi-circle) will be larger than the available relief area (available relief area is that part of the potential area that is outside the PA).

 

BOL from RED PA you choose a 2nd reference point anywhere behind the 1st, as far back as you want. That then becomes the reference point for your relief area, 1 CL either side of the (now) RP.

 

 

5) Yellow PA offers precisely the same BOL relief as the red PA, so precisely the same potential relief area exists for BOL relief taken from that reference point closest to the point of last crossing the edge. The ONLY difference between this yellow and red relief is the available relief area (that part of the potential relief area that is not in the PA) will highly likely be much smaller for a yellow PA (or even zero) because it is likely to be much closer to 90 degrees to the line of the hole while red is likely to be much closer to parallel.

 

I keep trying to picture why it is "highly likely" that BOL relief area for a yellow PA would be smaller than a BOL RA for a red area.

 

 

My key point here is there is nothing in the published new rules that constrains BOL relief from being on the green side of the penalty area, regardless of whether we are talking red or yellow penalty areas. And red or yellow is irrelevant when we are comparing BOL relief taken from the reference point closest to where the ball last crossed the edge of the PA.

 

I agree and that's the crux of the issue we've come up with BUT the Rules DO give lateral relief options so if the estimated point the ball last crossed a RED PA then it is pretty clear the player can drop on the green side. The issue is whether or not he can do that for a YELLOW PA which NOW, he can not. One might think the principle of having to go BACK over the yellow hazard would have been kept in the new Rules and, if not, one might also wonder why it wasn't highlighted as a major(?) change.

 

 

Now I'll add one further observation. There is virtually zero difference, for red penalty area relief, between BOL relief and lateral relief for the first club length of the relief area (lateral relief is larger overall, because it is 2CL versus 1CL) when the BOL relief is taken from the closest possible point to where the ball last crossed the edge. The only difference in the first club-length is that there is the tiniest difference in the reference points. Lateral relief: reference point is precisely point of last crossing; BOL relief reperence point is immediately behind that point. AND BOTH REFERENCE POINTS ARE IN THE PENALTY AREA BY DEFINITION.

 

Don't see where the Red relief area is larger overall. Yellow RA is 1 CL either side of the RP, total of 2 CLs. Red RA is 2 CLs from the RP, also a total of 2 CLs. The depth of the RA is measured from the middle backwards, I assume 1 CL as well.

 

Speaking of which, I assume the DEPTH of the RA, behind the RP, is 1 CL, yes ? I can't seem to find that spelled out. And a semi-circle ? Wonder why they didn't just measure like a teeing ground, a rectangle, just to make it easier ? I can just see someone gaming someone else by saying, if the guy drops near one of the edges that he dropped outside the semi-circle. LOL

 

And again you say BOTH reference points (or at least the red one, 'cause the yellow one certainly ISN'T) are in the PA "by definition". Could you kindly point out that definition in the Rules ? Thanks.

 

This is what the published rules state. If Ruling Bodies did not intend for yellow PA BOL relief to be available from the green side of the PA, they need to issue some directives or make some rule changes. And also keep in mind, even now under the current rules BOL relief can be taken on the green side of a penalty area (water hazard) for the red ones.

 

Unless I'm mistaken which is a definite possibility, I think you may be adding to the confusion. See above in blue.

 

And as mentioned above,,,,,,,,, a MAIN issue here is whether or not the player can drop on the green side of a yellow PA.

 

One might think the principle of having to go over the yellow hazard would have been kept in the new Rules. If not one would have to wonder why it was not highlighted as a major(?) change. I mean why else would there BE a yellow PA then ? If one didn't have to hit back over it why wouldn't it just be a red PA ?

 

There is probably too much to explain here to do it in one go but on your queries on 2. BOL point was not clear, I agree, I meant reference point on the BOL line. A key theme of my post was that if your ball has crossed a PA and come 'back' into it, that is, the point where you last crossed the edge is on the green side of a PA, AND you take BOL relief using a reference point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge of the PA, it makes no difference it is a red or yellow PA because precisely the same processes apply.

 

You misunderstand BOL relief from a red PA if you think it uses a different reference point. The ONLY time the point of last crossing the edge of the PA is relevant for red PA relief is when you take lateral relief (17.1d(3)).

 

I'm a little confused (again). First (bolded) part says the PILC (point it last crossed) is how you determine BOL relief for BOTH PAs. I agree.

 

But in the 2nd (bolded) part you believe I am confused. For the yellow PA there are 2 possible reference points. One is the spot the player chooses along the reference LINE where he takes his relief. The reference LINE is drawn straight back from the flag through the PILC as far as the player wants to go. The other RP is the original spot (S&D).

 

For the RED PA there are 3 possible reference points. Same 2 as the yellow. The 3rd one IS the PILC. Again, the RP is the point from which one takes their relief.

 

 

More generally, reference points are the tool to proceeding under many rules, but the reference point does not guarantee that a relief area exists that complies with the restrictions in that rule.

 

For No.3, yes I mean right behind it.

 

On No. 4, I don't get your point. I am only comparing red and yellow PA, player taking BOL relief AND using a reference point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge. My post is only talking of this specific situation, and seeking to identify the implications. Specifically, red and yellow PAs are identical in this situation, so this thread's discussion of yellow PA is inappropriately narrow.

 

I guess I'm just not understanding your point either. You suggest 1 relief area would likely be smaller than the other with 2 options of the red PA. I don't understand why. Take BOL, go back and choose a RP and it's 1 CL either side, total of 2 Cls (and the semi-circle). Use the PILC as the RP and you get 2 CLs to the side. Same-same

 

 

On No 5, because yellow PAs cross the line of play and red PA are mostly parallel to the line of play. Simple geometry after that.

 

Well, OK, I see where you're going here. I guess BOL relief from a parallel red area would often not have the available room for a "full" RA. I was thinking more of creeks crossing the fairway and "winding" red PAs where the ball might crosse where there was ample room to drop behind but I guess what you say is true. In general BOL relief from a red PA would generally result in a smaller area. Then again, most(?) red relief would be of the lateral variety anyway.

 

Now dealing with the reference points being in the PA: I thought this was very straightforward. if it is Red PA and you are taking lateral relief (17.1d(3)), your reference point is where you last crossed the edge of the PA - so that crossing point is in the PA. Think red paint line, point where you last crossed is on the paint line. The paint line is in the PA. That is how the edge of the PA is defined. If it is either red or yellow PA and you are taking BOL relief from the point immediately behind where the ball last crossed the edge, that point also MUST be in the PA.

 

Don't think it's worth splitting hairs about whether the RP is IN the PA or not for the red. Makes virtually no difference.

 

You said earlier though, it was IN the PA "by definition". Can you point me to that ?

 

 

See above.

 

And in any case while I would agree that IF it was possible to take BOL relief on the green side of a yellow PA that PA was awfully irregularly shaped where the ball came back in, that is not the main "argument/issue" here.

 

It's whether or not lateral relief can be taken for the yellow PA on the green side of the PA.

 

And now that I look through it again I see it possibly WAS covered in the Rule although I can't see how ALL of us could have missed it -

 

Below Diagram #1 17.1.d (about yellow PA) it says "(3) Lateral Relief (Only for Red Penalty Area). When the ball last crossed the edge of a red penalty area, the player may drop the original ball or another ball in this lateral relief area (see Rule 14.3):"