2019 Rules of Golf

[antip]

There is a difference between Int, 18.1/2 which concerns lifting a ball without the authority of a rule and this situation where the player does have that authority and is not liable for any penalty for having lifted it. !8.1/2 is not, in my opinion, applicable.

 

So you are saying that the player has the authority to lift his ball even though he cannot get the relief he thought he would?

 

Thus in the case of the Clarification (embedded ball just outside the bunker and no relief area) the player also has the authority to lift it even though there is no free relief available?

 

I must say I am very confused here. The way I see it there is no authority to lift a ball to get a free relief that is not available. Maybe I am missing something essential here.

Remember, though, you can always lift your ball to see if relief is available, providing you have followed due process, specifically marking before lifting.

I trust we agree that the right to lift the ball to see if relief is available does not extend to occasions when it can be seen that there is no relief available without lifting the ball:

 

16.4 Lifting Ball to See If It Lies in Condition Where Relief Allowed

 

If a player reasonably believes that his or her ball lies in a condition where free relief is allowed under Rule 15.2, 16.1 or 16.3, but cannot decide that without lifting the ball:

• The player may lift the ball to see if relief is allowed, but:
  
• The spot of the ball must first be marked, and the lifted ball must not be cleaned (except on the putting green) (see Rule 14.1).
  

If the player lifts the ball without having this reasonable belief (except on the putting green where the player may lift under Rule 13.1b), he or she gets one penalty stroke.

 

Quite right, my earlier post was premature as I had not checked the rule properly. (Note to self, hasty, time limited responses using the first thing that comes into your head very rarely proves to be a good idea.)

[antip]

Ok, a short summary.

 

1. You pick up your ball in play as you are entitled to a relief by R 16.1 but change your mind and don't take the relief. You get one stroke penalty, which makes sense. BUT if you take S&D you don't get that penalty. Does NOT make any sense.

 

2. You pick up your ball in play without knowing what to do with it or with no apparent reason and you get one stroke penalty for lifting your ball in play EVEN THOUGH you take S&D (Int 18.1/2). Makes sense.

 

3. You pick up your ball in play in order to take a free relief for Embedded Ball but there is no relief available. You get no penalty for lifting you ball in play even though you had no Rule to back up your act. Makes NO sense.

 

I am sooooooo confused...

I will not debate the things you feel make sense or don't, I have no standing for that. But I do believe that you are factually wrong in your point #3 above. I think you have to choose a result that will in fact provide a penalty.

On #3, I agree. #3 is actually a particular example of #2 - you have lifted the ball when there is no legitimate free relief available (you lifted without checking if there was free relief). So you are in a Int 18.1/2 world.

On #1, perhaps Mr Bean's confusion is reduced by describing it differently. You have lifted your ball under R16.1 but changed your mind so the original authority to lift has been erased. It will now cost you a one shot penalty to put the ball back on the course. Where can you put it? You have two options that cost you one shot penalty. Return it to the original position OR the spot where the previously shot was played. (Telling yourself you are not getting a penalty for S&D is untrue and confusing.) Other options come at higher cost (as per Int 9.4b/6).

[Mr. Bean]

Ok, a short summary.

 

1. You pick up your ball in play as you are entitled to a relief by R 16.1 but change your mind and don't take the relief. You get one stroke penalty, which makes sense. BUT if you take S&D you don't get that penalty. Does NOT make any sense.

 

2. You pick up your ball in play without knowing what to do with it or with no apparent reason and you get one stroke penalty for lifting your ball in play EVEN THOUGH you take S&D (Int 18.1/2). Makes sense.

 

3. You pick up your ball in play in order to take a free relief for Embedded Ball but there is no relief available. You get no penalty for lifting you ball in play even though you had no Rule to back up your act. Makes NO sense.

 

I am sooooooo confused...

I will not debate the things you feel make sense or don't, I have no standing for that. But I do believe that you are factually wrong in your point #3 above. I think you have to choose a result that will in fact provide a penalty.

On #3, I agree. #3 is actually a particular example of #2 - you have lifted the ball when there is no legitimate free relief available (you lifted without checking if there was free relief). So you are in a Int 18.1/2 world.

On #1, perhaps Mr Bean's confusion is reduced by describing it differently. You have lifted your ball under R16.1 but changed your mind so the original authority to lift has been erased. It will now cost you a one shot penalty to put the ball back on the course. Where can you put it? You have two options that cost you one shot penalty. Return it to the original position OR the spot where the previously shot was played. (Telling yourself you are not getting a penalty for S&D is untrue and confusing.) Other options come at higher cost (as per Int 9.4b/6).

 

I was not referring to S&D penalty but the penalty you get for lifting your ball and not taking free relief. To me it makes zero sense that it just disappears but remains if you use R19.2b or c.

 

Afa #3 is concerned, I agree with both of you and also see it to be treated as #2 with similar penalties but I remember having read in this very thread opposite arguments, that is why I included it here in the first place.

[Colin L]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

9.4b exempts a player from a penalty for lifting his ball if he is doing so under a rule which requires him to play a ball from a different place - which is exactly what 13.1f tells this player he must do.

 

9.4b/6 tells us about a player who has the choice of taking free relief, picks up his ball to do so and then changes his mind or finds too late that there is no relief area. That is not the case in the situation being discussed where the player has no choice. How can he be penalised for doing what the rule tells him he must do?

 

The difficulty is, of course, that 13.1f does not contemplate a situation where there is no relief area possible.

 

If all of that is sound, we then arguably have a situation not covered by the rules and should be looking for an equity answer.

[Newby]

We should be looking to the RBs to fill in the odd gaps they have left. I gather it is all hands to the pumps at the moment

[Mr. Bean]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball, nor in the unlikely situation of bunker face as described in the Clarification. But if he does lift it thinking he is entitled to a free relief can he escape the penalty when there is NO relief available?

[Halebopp]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

9.4b exempts a player from a penalty for lifting his ball if he is doing so under a rule which requires him to play a ball from a different place - which is exactly what 13.1f tells this player he must do.

 

9.4b/6 tells us about a player who has the choice of taking free relief, picks up his ball to do so and then changes his mind or finds too late that there is no relief area. That is not the case in the situation being discussed where the player has no choice. How can he be penalised for doing what the rule tells him he must do?

 

The difficulty is, of course, that 13.1f does not contemplate a situation where there is no relief area possible.

 

If all of that is sound, we then arguably have a situation not covered by the rules and should be looking for an equity answer.

 

There is no requirement for the player to play a shot with his feet on the wrong green. The player is allowed to play in other directions or take an unorthodox stance to avoid interference. Thus he isn't really forced to take relief, like from a no play zone. While the rule says you must take relief, to me it says you can't play the ball with your feet on the green and if that's how you want to proceed, then you must take relief. In this case the player has no free relief available to him and was not allowed to pick up the ball (despite the word must).

 

Looking at the situation as a whole, the player simply isn't required to play the ball from a different place.

[antip]

We should be looking to the RBs to fill in the odd gaps they have left. I gather it is all hands to the pumps at the moment

I couldn't agree more.

 

Well done for the question (I think it was a Sawgrass creation, but that was a hundred posts ago...). The rules are clearly creating a "gotcha" moment in this situation and that is obviously unintended. In this case it was caused by an unheralded change from the March 2018 draft to the July 2019 "Final" document that inserted that "same area" limitation. We have 13.1f proclaiming "free relief must be taken" but other rules are preventing that from happening. This needs to be punted back upstairs saying a little tidy up/work around is needed here. We could all get very old trying to engineer solutions from flawed tools.

[Colin L]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

[Shilgy]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

I agree with you Colin. Perhaps the others could convince the USGA to rewrite the rule?

 

First 13.1f states relief must be taken and explains meaning of interference by wrong green. Either the ball stance of swing must be on the wrong green...

 

Then 2) states Relief must be taken(bold in the rule book not just my emphasis) When their is interference by a wrong green a player must not play the ball as it lies. Instead, the player must take free relief by dropping the original ball or another ball in this relief area.

 

Perhaps the rule-all rules about dropping actually- should be rewritten to include that another line of play must be taken if the relief mandated is not available. When a player takes the intended reasonable line of play and interference is such that a rule states he MUST lift the ball why would a player not do so? Yes, I understand now to wait to pick up the ball until finding a drop point but that is not how this rule is written.

[Sawgrass]

We should be looking to the RBs to fill in the odd gaps they have left. I gather it is all hands to the pumps at the moment

I couldn't agree more.

 

Well done for the question (I think it was a Sawgrass creation, but that was a hundred posts ago...). The rules are clearly creating a "gotcha" moment in this situation and that is obviously unintended. In this case it was caused by an unheralded change from the March 2018 draft to the July 2019 "Final" document that inserted that "same area" limitation. We have 13.1f proclaiming "free relief must be taken" but other rules are preventing that from happening. This needs to be punted back upstairs saying a little tidy up/work around is needed here. We could all get very old trying to engineer solutions from flawed tools.

I believe I've detected another oddity in this general area of intrigue, but I didn't want to raise it until after the dust settled with this wrong green issue. Now that it has, let me take you to an occasion where your ball is in a bunker outside of a no play zone, but there's a no play zone that interferes with stance or swing. (Say that the ball is sitting in the back edge of the bunker, and abutting the back edge of the bunker is a flower bed which has been defined as ACC/no play.) There is, again in this particular case, no place in the bunker in which to drop that's not closer to the hole. So now what does the player do? Either shoot sideways as we've been discussing for the wrong green, but (to me very oddly) I think there's a get-out-of-jail-free card if the player had first picked up his or her ball prior to realizing that there was no place in the bunker to drop which was no closer and which avoided the interference.

 

Rule 16.1f (2) , covering ACC no play, directs you to 16.1c to take relief, as 16.1c covers releif from ACCs in bunkers. That rule, under choice (1) states that if compete relief doesn't exist, maximum available relief is an option for free relief. So, if I've worked this through in my head well enough, we've got a "maximum available relief" option for a ball in a bunker with no play zone interference from stance, and no "maximum available relief" option for a ball in a bunker with wrong green interference from stance.

 

That seems pretty odd to me -- allowing you to strike or stand in a no play zone because of maximum relief. Perhaps of note, 16.1f (2) comes right out and suggests an unplayable ball relief as an option, but 13.1f does not.

Note: as I was writing this I saw two new posts, so I guess the dust hasn't really settled yet -- but I'm posting this anyway and then I'll get on with reading the other posts carefully!

[Sawgrass]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

[Shilgy]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

As I posted above that is not how the rule was written. Having taken your intended(and reasonable) line you must pick up and take relief. I will defer to your expertise as to what "should be done" but that is not going strictly by rule.

[Sawgrass]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

As I posted above that is not how the rule was written. Having taken your intended(and reasonable) line you must pick up and take relief. I will defer to your expertise as to what "should be done" but that is not going strictly by rule.

I don't understand your point. The rule is "written" to say that if your ball is not on a wrong green, interference can only exist if you [choose to] take a stance on the wrong green or intend a stroke that will hit the wrong green. Are we in disagreement about that?

[Mr. Bean]

Let us take a step back.

 

Which are the Rules that require you to lift your ball? That is, you are not allowed to play from that very spot where your ball is.

 

For one, when your ball is ON a Wrong Green. If your STANCE is on the WG I cannot see why you would be required to lift your ball as you can always make another choice.

 

So, this leads us to ask whether we are REQUIRED to lift our ball if we do not NEED to but we merely CHOOSE to.

[Colin L]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

 

Well, it doesn't help, but it does astonish. The situation you described was of a player taking his normal stance resulting in his foot being on the wrong green. That means there is nothing untoward about his stance, nothing abnormal about it such that he might be thought to be trying it on. Would you, as a referee, tell him that he can't adopt his normal stance because his foot is on a wrong green and that he must adapt his stance so that it wasn't? In an optional relief situation, would you tell player who had taken up his normal stance and whose foot but not his ball is on a tarmac path that he couldn't get relief but had to change his stance or change the direction he played in so that the relief situation wouldn't exist?

 

I keep on returning in thinking about this to the basic fact that this player is being put in a completely unsatisfactory situation because of the rules, not because of anything he has done wrong or carelessly. There should never be any way in which a player cannot find a relief area when required to take relief.

[Sawgrass]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

 

Well, it doesn't help, but it does astonish. The situation you described was of a player taking his normal stance resulting in his foot being on the wrong green. That means there is nothing untoward about his stance, nothing abnormal about it such that he might be thought to be trying it on. Would you, as a referee, tell him that he can't adopt his normal stance because his foot is on a wrong green and that he must adapt his stance so that it wasn't? I'd tell him that he may not stand on the wrong green while making a stroke. In an optional relief situation, would you tell player who had taken up his normal stance and whose foot but not his ball is on a tarmac path that he couldn't get relief but had to change his stance or change the direction he played in so that the relief situation wouldn't exist? No, I'd let him take relief if that's what he wanted.

 

As to my bolded answers above, I don't think there's anything "astonishing" about them. What am I missing here?

[davep043]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

[Sawgrass]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

This is certainly true, but it keeps occurring to me that if you're anywhere near a wrong green you've probably hit a truly terrible shot -- and it's kind of hard for a Committee to comprehend in advance all the surrounding circumstances, including which hole the player is playing to! Lots and lots of permutations here!

[rogolf]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

I would also suggest that, in reality, such situations are extremely rare.

[Colin L]

I'd tell him that he may not stand on the wrong green while making a stroke. ....... What am I missing here?

 

You're missing the bit where you go on to say, "But if you find that in setting up in your normal stance to play in a reasonable direction your foot is on the wrong green, you must take relief." I don't think it is for a referee to be dictating to a player how he has to play a shot.

 

But I think we've gone round in enough circles to get dizzy and so I'm going to leave it at that. It's a situation that should not occur and maybe that will be fixed.

 

Thanks for presenting the question. It's been fascinating!

[Mr. Bean]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

 

As this revised Rule is there to protect the Putting Greens it does not sound such a great idea after all. Unless one would recognize all the possible angles on all the possible PG's on the course and identify those where this situation might occur and apply the LR only to those.

 

To me that sounds like a bad idea...

 

Next time anyone of us is out on a course, let us keep our eyes open and see if there are any bunkers closer to any PG less than a fair stance. That should give some perspective to this issue.

[Mr. Bean]

I'd tell him that he may not stand on the wrong green while making a stroke. ....... What am I missing here?

 

You're missing the bit where you go on to say, "But if you find that in setting up in your normal stance to play in a reasonable direction your foot is on the wrong green, you must take relief." I don't think it is for a referee to be dictating to a player how he has to play a shot.

 

But I think we've gone round in enough circles to get dizzy and so I'm going to leave it at that. It's a situation that should not occur and maybe that will be fixed.

 

Thanks for presenting the question. It's been fascinating!

 

But Colin, we still need an answer to the question 'does the player have a legitimate reason to lift his ball when there is no area he can drop a ball' ?

[Sawgrass]

 

You're missing the bit where you go on to say, "But if you find that in setting up in your normal stance to play in a reasonable direction your foot is on the wrong green, you must take relief."

 

I would not say that, because the "must" in the sentence is untrue. You don't have to take relief, you can change your stance.

 

But yes, I agree that the whole thing is interesting and I hope to get a reaction from the USGA as to this issue as well as the somewhat related issue I posted above in post # 521. But I fear that a reaction will be a long time in coming.

[davep043]

 

Next time anyone of us is out on a course, let us keep our eyes open and see if there are any bunkers closer to any PG less than a fair stance. That should give some perspective to this issue.

I imagine we'll find that they're very rare. And then to imagine playing to another nearby hole, could you have a stance on the PG and NOT have any acceptable relief within the same bunker? Extremely rare, I bet.

[Shilgy]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

9.4b exempts a player from a penalty for lifting his ball if he is doing so under a rule which requires him to play a ball from a different place - which is exactly what 13.1f tells this player he must do.

 

9.4b/6 tells us about a player who has the choice of taking free relief, picks up his ball to do so and then changes his mind or finds too late that there is no relief area. That is not the case in the situation being discussed where the player has no choice. How can he be penalised for doing what the rule tells him he must do?

 

The difficulty is, of course, that 13.1f does not contemplate a situation where there is no relief area possible.

 

If all of that is sound, we then arguably have a situation not covered by the rules and should be looking for an equity answer.

 

There is no requirement for the player to play a shot with his feet on the wrong green. The player is allowed to play in other directions or take an unorthodox stance to avoid interference. Thus he isn't really forced to take relief, like from a no play zone. While the rule says you must take relief, to me it says you can't play the ball with your feet on the green and if that's how you want to proceed, then you must take relief. In this case the player has no free relief available to him and was not allowed to pick up the ball (despite the word must).

 

Looking at the situation as a whole, the player simply isn't required to play the ball from a different place.

Except of course if he took the suggested line of play and that put his stance on the wrong green that would be forbidden? :)

[antip]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

I would also suggest that, in reality, such situations are extremely rare.

I agree. And that brings a significant advantage - that it is not a complex issue to manage - which is a valuable message to Committees everywhere. Assess your course: if there is any sort of realistic possibility that a player may have wrong green interference with stance only for a ball that lies in a bunker AND not be able to take the free relief proclaimed in 13.1f in the bunker, then post the local rule varying the relief requirement to lie of ball only for that specific location.

 

It remains the case, though, that RBs should be consulted to ask what are the player's relief options when the requirements of the rule (When there is interference by a wrong green, free relief MUST be taken.) cannot be met. They got us into this situation, they need to own the solution.

[antip]

Still exploring rather than asserting! My reasons for coming round to questioning a penalty for lifting the ball in the peculiar circumstances hypothesised by Sawgrass are these:

 

Because the player must take relief he is required to lift his ball and play it from somewhere else. 18.1/2 concerns a player who is not allowed to lift his ball. How can that be applicable to a player who is obliged to lift it?

 

 

But in the case of Wrong Green the player is not required to lift the ball.....

 

This is where I seem to be having a mental block. If there is interference from a wrong green, you are required to take relief i.e you have to play your ball from somewhere other than where it was. How do you manage that without lifting it?

Colin, when a ball itself isn't directly on a wrong green, there isn't any interference until/unless a player chooses to take a stance on that wrong green. The interference doesn't exist until the player makes it exist. So you are not required to "take relief" unless you cause a problem for yourself. I hope that helps.

As I posted above that is not how the rule was written. Having taken your intended(and reasonable) line you must pick up and take relief. I will defer to your expertise as to what "should be done" but that is not going strictly by rule.

If I am referring to your words here out of context, then ignore this post, but I want to pick up on the enlarged sentence. Having decided an intended (and reasonable) line any time on the course, there is no rule that commits you to proceed with that intent. You can always change your mind/intent without consequences that result purely from changing your mind if there has been no further intervening event (such as lifting a ball, putting a ball into play etc, etc...).

[rogolf]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

I would also suggest that, in reality, such situations are extremely rare.

I agree. And that brings a significant advantage - that it is not a complex issue to manage - which is a valuable message to Committees everywhere. Assess your course: if there is any sort of realistic possibility that a player may have wrong green interference with stance only for a ball that lies in a bunker AND not be able to take the free relief proclaimed in 13.1f in the bunker, then post the local rule varying the relief requirement to lie of ball only for that specific location.

 

It remains the case, though, that RBs should be consulted to ask what are the player's relief options when the requirements of the rule (When there is interference by a wrong green, free relief MUST be taken.) cannot be met. They got us into this situation, they need to own the solution.

While these 2019 Rule changes may seem like a revolution, it is still an evolution and changes will be implemented as appropriate. As in the past, I don't expect any "knee-jerk" reactions. The change process is thoughtful, thorough and deliberate for very good reason.

The question the ruling bodies ask themselves, "Is this the result the Rules produce, and are we happy with that result?"

[Augster]

It seems to me that the logical solution is for the Committee to deny relief where the wrong green impacts only the player's intended stance, which is an acceptable Local Rule. In this way, the player would not be forced to alter his intended line of play in order to avoid taking a stance on the green, simply because there was no acceptable Relief Area available.

I would also suggest that, in reality, such situations are extremely rare.

 

I agree completely.

 

It’s not the rule that is the problem, it’s the hypothetical. Which is the problem with hypotheticals. Most of the time they aren’t based in fact. They ask a question of a situation that will likely never occur. Could it occur? Possibly.

 

Though, I’ve played, and watched others play, 10’s of 1000’s of rounds and can’t think of a single instance this might have been the case. Granted, wrong PG almost never happens. There are only 6 holes at my course where this could happen, and only 2 of those situations are even semi-likely as you have to be 40 yards off line and 290+ to the other green. So 2 real chances every round and 99% of the players I play with could never reach the other green.

 

So that may explain why I never see it.