2019 Rules of Golf

[rogolf]

Pretty sure this has been touched on before, but I can't seem to locate it...

 

Our club has a good amount of native area that borders the course. Most of it is a 10-30 yard wide "buffer" zone between primary rough and OOB (back yards). Is there guidance as to whether these should be marked as penalty areas, or left as unmarked native area?

 

My advice is to proceed slowly with implementing penalty areas. They may not be the panacea that "everyone" is expecting them to be.

Halebopp has provided an excellent resource. My view is that the cons of penalty areas are many, such as,

 

- no free relief from immovable obstructions within penalty areas. If you want relief you must take penalty area relief, with its one stroke penalty and potential loss of distance (returning to where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area)

- no unplayable ball relief. If your ball is unplayable, you must take penalty area relief, with its one stroke penalty and potential loss of distance (returning to where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area)

- no free relief from ground under repair, temporary water, animal holes. If you want relief you must take penalty area relief, with its one stroke penalty and potential loss of distance (returning to where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area)

- no free relief for an embedded ball. If you want relief you must take penalty area relief, with its one stroke penalty and potential loss of distance (returning to where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area)

- if you choose to play your ball from within a penalty area, don't get out and can't find that ball, you're now in a real Rules situation!

 

Further, specific to your case with out of bounds at the outer edge of a potential penalty area, you will run into issues where the ball is not found and the player claims it is in the penalty area rather than out of bounds. In order to proceed under the penalty area Rule, it must be known or virtually certain that the ball that is not found is in the penalty area, otherwise the only option for the player is stroke and distance (as in out of bounds).

[Newby]

There are however advantages to penalty areas that weren't available to water hazards. Loose impediments may be moved and you may ground your club or touch the ground with your hand.

[rogolf]

There are however advantages to penalty areas that weren't available to water hazards. Loose impediments may be moved and you may ground your club or touch the ground with your hand.

Yes, but you could always do those things in the general area, so it's not new or advantageous to newly marked penalty areas (such as in almost's post). And you think that people didn't already do those things in areas that were improperly marked as lateral "water" hazards?

[jlbos83]

The more I learn about the updates, the less I like most of them. I see flagsticks going in and out, abuse of penalty areas, or assumption that they are there when they are not. People complain that the rules are too complicated, when almost every "complicated" rule is there to give the player a break. We can make it simple. Play the ball as it lies. If you don't like how it lies, or can't find it, stroke and distance. I guess I will let you mark the ball on the green, since otherwise stroke play could be unfair. For match play, if you are farther out, that's your fault, figure it out!

When January rolls around, I'll figure out where to drop from obstructions, hope not to see newly defined penalty areas, and play OB as stroke and distance. And stop counting double chips!

[sui generis]

My club has always had good Local Rules and good stakes. In January, we'll go all red and add just one non-water related penalty area (behind a par 3 that had been OB).

 

Our guidance is this, Course Marking for General Play:

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=cp&section=rule&rulenum=2

 

We'll also adopt the Local Rule for an alternative procedure for lost ball or ball out of bounds for general play.

[antip]

Situation: Player advises wants the flagstick attended and then putts while another player attends. As the ball is in motion and approaching the flagstick fast, the player screams "leave it in, leave it in" and the person attending lets it go and gets out of the way. The ball hits the flagstick. What is the ruling ?

The first point is this would seem to be a deliberate deflect/stop situation, with the attendee being the agent under the authority of the player who putted. So this appears to be R13.2b(2) and the general penalty applies, but to whom? We have no guidance specific to this situation but the only options seem to be the player alone (the player authorised the illegitimate action) or the player and the attendee, unless we get some guidance that a player that breaches 13.2b/11.2 under the authority of another player is absolved of the crime.

 

This particular issue is being discussed elsewhere with no consensus so far.

 

My view is based on R1.3c(1). As the attendee acts at specific instructions by the player, the player is subject to penalty, not the attendee.

I agree that R1.3c(1) provides an authority to penalise the player (if you can't find the authority in R13 and R11) but it does not get the attendee off the hook. That will require an explicit statement from the powers that be. There have been existing rulings that penalise player and fellow competitor currently in the situation of current R1-2 breaches where a FC at the request of a player stops a ball that is careering through the green. So this one needs clear guidance that we do not have at the moment.

Following is the first part of 1.3c (1). IMO the phrase "A penalty also applies when:" suggests that both the player and attendee would be penalized (unless the attendee is the player's caddie). It's the only way I can interpret the word "also" in that sentence.

 

c. Penalties

 

(1) Actions Giving Rise to Penalties. A penalty applies when a breach of a Rule results from a player’s own actions or the actions of his or her caddie (see Rule 10.3c).

 

A penalty also applies when:

• 
  Another person takes an action that would breach the Rules if taken by the player or caddieand that person does so at the player’s request or while acting with the player’s authority, or
  

I agree that is one possible reading (applying a penalty to the 'other' perpetrator, the agent in this case). But I don't think that is the intent of this rule. IMO the intent is to make clear you cannot avoid a penalty by getting someone else to do an illegitimate act on your behalf.

[James the Hogan Fan]

The one that bugs me, and someone will be caught out by it, is dropping a ball from shoulder height is now an improper drop. I get why; you can use the drop and roll out rule to your advantage to place (and placing is a huge advantage) but it just seems odd that the way to drop a ball since the over-the-shoulder days is now changed. It just seems like a ”because we can” change that will lead to a lot of penalty strokes for uneducated folks while others chide them for ”not knowing the rules”. Why not just place it at this point? You’ve already paid the stroke.

[jlbos83]

I am waiting to see players dig a trench to the hole tapping down "spike marks". What's to stop them?

[rogolf]

The one that bugs me, and someone will be caught out by it, is dropping a ball from shoulder height is now an improper drop. I get why; you can use the drop and roll out rule to your advantage to place (and placing is a huge advantage) but it just seems odd that the way to drop a ball since the over-the-shoulder days is now changed. It just seems like a "because we can" change that will lead to a lot of penalty strokes for uneducated folks while others chide them for "not knowing the rules". Why not just place it at this point? You've already paid the stroke.

 

Dropping is used in many more Rules than those that involve a penalty. Placing is far too much of an advantage.

In many cases, I think that those that don't currently follow the Rules want the Rules changed to justify how they currently play and to ease their conscience.

[Roadking2003]

I am waiting to see players dig a trench to the hole tapping down "spike marks". What's to stop them?

 

Slow play. Why do you care if they keep the pace?

[jlbos83]

We know that pros don't care about slow play, in practice. And slow players (never realizing it's them) don't care either. "We" all say it is a problem, but we don't show any interest, as a total group, in actually doing anything about it. Which leads to the conclusion that it isn't the problem we like to say it is.

[Sawgrass]

I am waiting to see players dig a trench to the hole tapping down "spike marks". What's to stop them?

 

13.1c(2) says in part:

 

But if the player improves the putting green by taking actions that exceed what is reasonable to restore the putting green to its original condition (such as by creating a pathway to the hole or by using an object that is not allowed), the player gets the general penalty for breach of Rule 8.1a.

[Augster]

Most all of this “sky is falling” talk is just nonsense. The truth is the new rules are much easier and much quicker to play with. I played 15 rounds with the new rules, before the snow came, and every round was quicker and easier to play than with 2018 and earlier rules.

 

Long putt, don’t pull the pin. Don’t have to wait to have it attended. Much faster.

 

Knee drops don’t roll as far, so they stay in the drop area easier. 1 drop. Faster than 2 drop, chase and place.

 

3 minutes for lost balls instead of 5.

 

Lost ball local rule saves from going back to the previous spot which takes time.

 

Penalty areas along most holes. Less lost balls. Just drop and go. Less searching.

 

If your rounds on a wide open course aren’t 10 minutes faster, or more, you are playing with turtles.

 

The next change I’d like to see that would speed up play even more is no more bunker raking. Just hit and go putt. Raking bunkers is a complete pace of play suck. I’d like to see it abolished or optional.

 

 

 

[Snowm4n]

The real question is... which course are you playing at.

 

Rogolf, here's one for You.

 

I am 254% sure I know the correct answer but in my country this issue is just about to escalate so I just throw it in here.

 

Here is the question:

 

'Player A putts and player B is attending the flagstick at the request of player A. As it happens, B is distracted by a topless female golfer passing by forgetting to lift the flagstick and A's ball collides with the flagstick.

 

Q1: Is there a penalty for the player A?

Q2: If so, where is that found in the Rules 2019?'

 

I am especially interested in Q2...

[Sawgrass]

Situation: Player advises wants the flagstick attended and then putts while another player attends. As the ball is in motion and approaching the flagstick fast, the player screams "leave it in, leave it in" and the person attending lets it go and gets out of the way. The ball hits the flagstick. What is the ruling ?

The first point is this would seem to be a deliberate deflect/stop situation, with the attendee being the agent under the authority of the player who putted. So this appears to be R13.2b(2) and the general penalty applies, but to whom? We have no guidance specific to this situation but the only options seem to be the player alone (the player authorised the illegitimate action) or the player and the attendee, unless we get some guidance that a player that breaches 13.2b/11.2 under the authority of another player is absolved of the crime.

 

This particular issue is being discussed elsewhere with no consensus so far.

 

My view is based on R1.3c(1). As the attendee acts at specific instructions by the player, the player is subject to penalty, not the attendee.

I agree that R1.3c(1) provides an authority to penalise the player (if you can't find the authority in R13 and R11) but it does not get the attendee off the hook. That will require an explicit statement from the powers that be. There have been existing rulings that penalise player and fellow competitor currently in the situation of current R1-2 breaches where a FC at the request of a player stops a ball that is careering through the green. So this one needs clear guidance that we do not have at the moment.

Following is the first part of 1.3c (1). IMO the phrase "A penalty also applies when:" suggests that both the player and attendee would be penalized (unless the attendee is the player's caddie). It's the only way I can interpret the word "also" in that sentence.

 

c. Penalties

 

(1) Actions Giving Rise to Penalties. A penalty applies when a breach of a Rule results from a player’s own actions or the actions of his or her caddie (see Rule 10.3c).

 

A penalty also applies when:

• 
  Another person takes an action that would breach the Rules if taken by the player or caddieand that person does so at the player’s request or while acting with the player’s authority, or
  

I agree that is one possible reading (applying a penalty to the 'other' perpetrator, the agent in this case). But I don't think that is the intent of this rule. IMO the intent is to make clear you cannot avoid a penalty by getting someone else to do an illegitimate act on your behalf.

And I agree with you about the main intent of this segment of the rules. But I further note that since the rules don't otherwise say if both the player striking the ball and another player should each be charged the subject penalty (for willfully leaving flagstick which must be taken out of the hole in the hole), R 20.3 says situations not covered by the rules should be treated in a way that is reasonable, fair, and consistent with how similar situations are treated under the rules.

 

Seems to me that 1.3c is the best we've got, and beyond that it's fair and reasonable to charge each player for violating such an obvious requirement. The attender certainly knew/should have known that being re-directed after the ball was in motion was a wrong thing to do.

[Naptime]

Most of us have been practicing the new rules for a few years. ?

[bladehunter]

Most all of this “sky is falling” talk is just nonsense. The truth is the new rules are much easier and much quicker to play with. I played 15 rounds with the new rules, before the snow came, and every round was quicker and easier to play than with 2018 and earlier rules.

 

Long putt, don’t pull the pin. Don’t have to wait to have it attended. Much faster.

 

Knee drops don’t roll as far, so they stay in the drop area easier. 1 drop. Faster than 2 drop, chase and place.

 

3 minutes for lost balls instead of 5.

 

Lost ball local rule saves from going back to the previous spot which takes time.

 

Penalty areas along most holes. Less lost balls. Just drop and go. Less searching.

 

If your rounds on a wide open course aren’t 10 minutes faster, or more, you are playing with turtles.

 

The next change I’d like to see that would speed up play even more is no more bunker raking. Just hit and go putt. Raking bunkers is a complete pace of play suck. I’d like to see it abolished or optional.

 

What did the experience do to your scores ?

 

On the bunker raking. Just play worse courses. Some don’t get raked but once a week or so. Lol

[bladehunter]

Most of us have been practicing the new rules for a few years. ?

 

I took Rogolfs comment to mean just that. That the changes are to align with what most are already doing in casual play.

[Sawgrass]

Most of us have been practicing the new rules for a few years.

 

I took Rogolfs comment to mean just that. That the changes are to align with what most are already doing in casual play.

Though somehow the RB's seem to have left out the ubiquitous "root rule."

[Mr. Bean]

Seems to me that 1.3c is the best we've got, and beyond that it's fair and reasonable to charge each player for violating such an obvious requirement. The attender certainly knew/should have known that being re-directed after the ball was in motion was a wrong thing to do.

 

I find it unfair to punish the attender in such a case as this but we'll just have to wait to get official guidance on that.

[Sawgrass]

Seems to me that 1.3c is the best we've got, and beyond that it's fair and reasonable to charge each player for violating such an obvious requirement. The attender certainly knew/should have known that being re-directed after the ball was in motion was a wrong thing to do.

 

I find it unfair to punish the attender in such a case as this but we'll just have to wait to get official guidance on that.

I'll be happy to hear official guidance. But for the moment, in terms of your feeling it unfair to penalize the attender for obeying the player's request to change the player's earlier direction after the ball is in motion, I wonder how you feel about the following parallel situation: A player's ball is rolling back toward its earlier location after the player fails to chip it all the way up a hill onto a green. The player yells to a fellow competitor asking him to move a stick and lay it down to prevent the ball's continuing on its track. In your opinion would it be fair to penalize the fellow competitor as well as the player then?

[antip]

Seems to me that 1.3c is the best we've got, and beyond that it's fair and reasonable to charge each player for violating such an obvious requirement. The attender certainly knew/should have known that being re-directed after the ball was in motion was a wrong thing to do.

 

I find it unfair to punish the attender in such a case as this but we'll just have to wait to get official guidance on that.

I'll be happy to hear official guidance. But for the moment, in terms of your feeling it unfair to penalize the attender for obeying the player's request to change the player's earlier direction after the ball is in motion, I wonder how you feel about the following parallel situation: A player's ball is rolling back toward its earlier location after the player fails to chip it all the way up a hill onto a green. The player yells to a fellow competitor asking him to move a stick and lay it down to prevent the ball's continuing on its track. In your opinion would it be fair to penalize the fellow competitor as well as the player then?

The putting green action in the New World (2019) is sufficiently different that I firmly believe we need clear official guidance immediately, not in 2 years time. And I am indifferent to the content of that guidance, I'll just get on and implement.

The "I find it unfair..." argument is very reasonable and shared by many, which only emphasises the need for clarity.

We do though already have guidance in an away from the green situation that parallels your further question - see Int 8.3/1 "Both players are penalized......"

[Sawgrass]

Seems to me that 1.3c is the best we've got, and beyond that it's fair and reasonable to charge each player for violating such an obvious requirement. The attender certainly knew/should have known that being re-directed after the ball was in motion was a wrong thing to do.

 

I find it unfair to punish the attender in such a case as this but we'll just have to wait to get official guidance on that.

I'll be happy to hear official guidance. But for the moment, in terms of your feeling it unfair to penalize the attender for obeying the player's request to change the player's earlier direction after the ball is in motion, I wonder how you feel about the following parallel situation: A player's ball is rolling back toward its earlier location after the player fails to chip it all the way up a hill onto a green. The player yells to a fellow competitor asking him to move a stick and lay it down to prevent the ball's continuing on its track. In your opinion would it be fair to penalize the fellow competitor as well as the player then?

The putting green action in the New World (2019) is sufficiently different that I firmly believe we need clear official guidance immediately, not in 2 years time. And I am indifferent to the content of that guidance, I'll just get on and implement.

The "I find it unfair..." argument is very reasonable and shared by many, which only emphasises the need for clarity.

We do though already have guidance in an away from the green situation that parallels your further question - see Int 8.3/1 "Both players are penalized......"

Darn, you sprung my trap before anyone was caught.

 

In any case, I say “caught” because, to me, this clearly suggests what should become of an accomplice in the subject discussion about the flagstick.

[Mr. Bean]

We do though already have guidance in an away from the green situation that parallels your further question - see Int 8.3/1 "Both players are penalized......"

 

That is a good find and IMO also applies to the original case. Let us see if R&A confirms that ( I sent a request yesterday).

 

I have been busy working with the translation of the Rule Book and only starting to read the Interpretations. Fortunately our season only starts April but before that there will be some classes to be given so I certainly have to start soon. Like today :taunt:

[SkiSchoolPro]

The one that bugs me, and someone will be caught out by it, is dropping a ball from shoulder height is now an improper drop. I get why; you can use the drop and roll out rule to your advantage to place (and placing is a huge advantage) but it just seems odd that the way to drop a ball since the over-the-shoulder days is now changed. It just seems like a "because we can" change that will lead to a lot of penalty strokes for uneducated folks while others chide them for "not knowing the rules". Why not just place it at this point? You've already paid the stroke.

 

Dropping is used in many more Rules than those that involve a penalty. Placing is far too much of an advantage.

In many cases, I think that those that don't currently follow the Rules want the Rules changed to justify how they currently play and to ease their conscience.

I get that it is an advantage to place but placing definitely simplifies things...how often do you take non-penalty drops?

 

I think it would simply things, albeit less, if you allowed placements when taking a penalty drop but required free relief to be a drop. For purists, there is some basis in the original rules for this:

 

“IF YOUR BALL COMES AMONG WATTER, OR ANY WATTERY FILTH, YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE OUT YOUR BALL & BRINGING IT BEHIND THE HAZARD AND TEEING IT, YOU MAY PLAY IT WITH ANY CLUB AND ALLOW YOUR ADVERSARY A STROKE FOR SO GETTING OUT YOUR BALL.”

[bladehunter]

is it wrong that the quoted section above was narrated in my mind by the voice of Sean Connery ?

[Mr. Bean]

We do though already have guidance in an away from the green situation that parallels your further question - see Int 8.3/1 "Both players are penalized......"

 

I started to ponder this from the philosophical point of view and came to following conclusion:

 

Penalties are assessed to compensate a potential advantage a player gets from breaching a Rule. In this 8.3/1 player A does not get any advantage for helping player B playing his ball so what is the reason to penalize player A ? I suppose it is the 'protect the field' point of view instead of any advantage as player A does not get any.

 

Does this make any sense?

[rogolf]

We do though already have guidance in an away from the green situation that parallels your further question - see Int 8.3/1 "Both players are penalized......"

 

I started to ponder this from the philosophical point of view and came to following conclusion:

 

Penalties are assessed to compensate a potential advantage a player gets from breaching a Rule. In this 8.3/1 player A does not get any advantage for helping player B playing his ball so what is the reason to penalize player A ? I suppose it is the 'protect the field' point of view instead of any advantage as player A does not get any.

 

Does this make any sense?

 

One of the stated requirements of the modernization project was that "it must still be golf", ie, not hockey.

[davep043]

The one that bugs me, and someone will be caught out by it, is dropping a ball from shoulder height is now an improper drop. I get why; you can use the drop and roll out rule to your advantage to place (and placing is a huge advantage) but it just seems odd that the way to drop a ball since the over-the-shoulder days is now changed. It just seems like a "because we can" change that will lead to a lot of penalty strokes for uneducated folks while others chide them for "not knowing the rules". Why not just place it at this point? You've already paid the stroke.

 

Dropping is used in many more Rules than those that involve a penalty. Placing is far too much of an advantage.

In many cases, I think that those that don't currently follow the Rules want the Rules changed to justify how they currently play and to ease their conscience.

I get that it is an advantage to place but placing definitely simplifies things...how often do you take non-penalty drops?

 

I think it would simply things, albeit less, if you allowed placements when taking a penalty drop but required free relief to be a drop. For purists, there is some basis in the original rules for this:

 

"IF YOUR BALL COMES AMONG WATTER, OR ANY WATTERY FILTH, YOU ARE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE OUT YOUR BALL & BRINGING IT BEHIND THE HAZARD AND TEEING IT, YOU MAY PLAY IT WITH ANY CLUB AND ALLOW YOUR ADVERSARY A STROKE FOR SO GETTING OUT YOUR BALL."

This is true, but there's precedent for throwing the ball at least 6 yards behind, or for teeing it up and playing it with an iron only, or throwing it over your head behind the water, or a number of other options. The first unified rules, in the 1890's, required that the ball be dropped.

As for the idea that paying a stroke should entitle you to place the ball, I'd suggest that you paid your stroke to move the ball from the dire situation into which you hit it in the first place. You paid your stroke to avoid playing the ball as it lies. Once you're out of that dire situation, you deserve no better lie than you otherwise might have had, assuming you weren't in such a bad place that you needed to move it. "No better lie" means that there should be some level of randomness or uncertainty, just as happens with every golf shot, and that's what a drop is intended to do.

[Sawgrass]

On the broader topic of changes in the 2019 Rules, I note that while the word "opponent" still has a definition and otherwise appears in the Rules, the words "competitor" and "fellow-competitor" seem to have been banished in favor of the simple, undefined, "player" or "player in the group."

 

I'm a bit sad . . .