2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[nsxguy]

And that's exactly what happened. The ball landed outside (green side) of the yellow PA and rolled backwards into the yellow PA.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken but I was watching it live and IMO there's no way Vijay took back on the line relief. They appear to have used the point it last crossed and Vijay got relief to the side.

The referee clearly said to VJ "back-on-the-line relief". "Back" isn't defined, it can be minuscule.

 

I didn't hear that part but I misspoke anyway. Sorry about that. Of course it was BOL relief.

[Newby]

Exactly as I saw it. Given that the edge of the penalty area is the edge of the painted line on the golf course side, his reference point could be on the painted line and still be behind the point where the ball entered (touched the vertical extension of the edge of) the penalty area.

I didn't see it but does this match the concept?

 

 

[cardoustie]

Would it not be smart to just kill the yellow permanently to simplify things ... all red

 

You carry the hazard you get the far side

 

Vijay's drop would cause major problems in most of our money games as the rules now stand

[Mr. Bean]

Would it not be smart to just kill the yellow permanently to simplify things ... all red

 

You carry the hazard you get the far side

 

Vijay's drop would cause major problems in most of our money games as the rules now stand

 

Problem with your suggestion lies in KVC and PoP. Who can say if the ball actually crossed the green side line twice? And if there is KVC it did, will there be a legal place to drop?

 

Forcing people to play again behind the yellow PA is much faster than making them to go on the green side to see whether they can drop there and then return as they could not.

 

I prefer simplicity as it is way faster.

[DaveLeeNC]

Exactly as I saw it. Given that the edge of the penalty area is the edge of the painted line on the golf course side, his reference point could be on the painted line and still be behind the point where the ball entered (touched the vertical extension of the edge of) the penalty area.

I didn't see it but does this match the concept?

 

 

 

Newby, that is what I thought that I saw watching live and what the Shotrak data (with probably inaccurate boundary markings) showed.

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

So... what's the big deal..?

 

No difference from last year.

[davep043]

Exactly as I saw it. Given that the edge of the penalty area is the edge of the painted line on the golf course side, his reference point could be on the painted line and still be behind the point where the ball entered (touched the vertical extension of the edge of) the penalty area.

I didn't see it but does this match the concept?

 

 

 

Newby, that is what I thought that I saw watching live and what the Shotrak data (with probably inaccurate boundary markings) showed.

 

dave

My impression was that the line of flight and entry point were close to where the blue dotted flagline crosses the edge of the hazard nearer to the flag. One clublength to the players left of the entry point/reference point would allow a relief area that does not require the player to hit over any of the water. I believe that's why its an item for discussion here.

[Newby]

None. I got the impression that some didn't understand how he managed to drop where he did for a yellow PA. The significance of the missing word 'behind' was possibly overlooked

 

Edit: And the post above.

[Mr. Bean]

My impression was that the line of flight and entry point were close to where the blue dotted flagline crosses the edge of the hazard nearer to the flag. One clublength to the players left of the entry point/reference point would allow a relief area that does not require the player to hit over any of the water. I believe that's why its an item for discussion here.

 

The item is whether it is allowed to have the Reference Point inside the same PA where the ball is and this Vijay example seems to have nothing to do with that. A lot of noise out of nothing.

[Newby]

I think you will find that other things have been mentioned in the last 300+ posts

[davep043]

My impression was that the line of flight and entry point were close to where the blue dotted flagline crosses the edge of the hazard nearer to the flag. One clublength to the players left of the entry point/reference point would allow a relief area that does not require the player to hit over any of the water. I believe that's why its an item for discussion here.

 

The item is whether it is allowed to have the Reference Point inside the same PA where the ball is and this Vijay example seems to have nothing to do with that. A lot of noise out of nothing.

When I was watching, it appeared that he DID use a reference point inside the same PA. I've marked up the drawing to show where I believe the ball entered the hazard, and the location of his drop.

[HitEmTrue]

Sawgrass, do you have this on your DVR?

[Sawgrass]

Sawgrass, do you have this on your DVR?

Not any longer, I’m afraid. But my impression was similar to the above illustration, and that last year’s back on the line wouldnt have been much different. Nor would it be much different any time the point last crossed created a line which was just a tangent off the edge of the PA.

 

Last year as well as this year, one might have had to hit back over the edge of a hazard/PA instead of over the hazard/PA itself.

 

There are other configurations where the 2019/2018 differences are much greater.

[rogolf]

Sawgrass, do you have this on your DVR?

What do you want to know? I think it's still on mine.

[HitEmTrue]

Sawgrass, do you have this on your DVR?

What do you want to know? I think it's still on mine.

 

Was the drop on the right side of the water, as marked by davep in post #310? Or on the left as shown in Newby's post #301?

 

On the right would require the reference point to be inside the hazard (edit to add), which would still be OK until/unless the rule is revised.

[Argonne69]

Hope this helps. To me it was pretty clear it was a legal drop. He established his reference point a few inches behind (closer to the camera) the point where the ball crossed the hazard, and then dropped within 1 club length no closer to the hole. In 2018 he would have been able to drop along the line from the point and the flag, and thus stay on the green side of the hazard. He would have been a few yards closer to the camera, but he still wouldn't have had to carry any water, but rather skirt the yellow line.

 

 

[rogolf]

Sawgrass, do you have this on your DVR?

What do you want to know? I think it's still on mine.

 

Was the drop on the right side of the water, as marked by davep in post #310? Or on the left as shown in Newby's post #301?

 

On the right would require the reference point to be inside the hazard (edit to add), which would still be OK until/unless the rule is revised.

I don't think the drawing is a very accurate representation of the situation (because the "flagline" is in the wrong place - it doesn't go through the point where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area). The ball did cross the yellow penalty area and roll back in, at a point that was probably just to the left (away from the hole) of the point where the yellow line was furthest onto the grass. The referee and VJ discussed back-on-the-line relief, VJ chose his reference point (whether it was in the penalty area or not doesn't matter, so long as it is on the "flagline"), measured one club-length from the reference point ( up the slope, into the general area) to determine the available relief area, and then correctly dropped the ball into the relief area. As it turned out, no part of the penalty area was then between the ball and the hole. It was all done correctly.

[Augster]

My impression was that the line of flight and entry point were close to where the blue dotted flagline crosses the edge of the hazard nearer to the flag. One clublength to the players left of the entry point/reference point would allow a relief area that does not require the player to hit over any of the water. I believe that's why its an item for discussion here.

 

The item is whether it is allowed to have the Reference Point inside the same PA where the ball is and this Vijay example seems to have nothing to do with that. A lot of noise out of nothing.

When I was watching, it appeared that he DID use a reference point inside the same PA. I've marked up the drawing to show where I believe the ball entered the hazard, and the location of his drop.

 

That image of where his “drop” was is absolutely not correct.

 

He dropped back on the line. His reference point, if he’d have dropped there, would have had to carry a sliver of the water hazard as dictated by the yellow hazard rule.

[HitEmTrue]

Thanks, rogolf. Not questioning whether the drop was valid, the way rules are currently written.

 

Apparently there is a possibility that clarification will be issued that would NOT allow the reference point to be in the same hazard.

 

So this is an interesting case if reference point was inside the hazard.

[HitEmTrue]

That image of where his “drop” was is absolutely not correct.

 

He dropped back on the line. His reference point, if he’d have dropped there, would have had to carry a sliver of the water hazard as dictated by the yellow hazard rule.

 

The yellow hazard rule doesn’t (necessarily) require carrying any water any more.

 

[Sawgrass]

Hope this helps. To me it was pretty clear it was a legal drop. He established his reference point a few inches behind (closer to the camera) the point where the ball crossed the hazard, and then dropped within 1 club length no closer to the hole. In 2018 he would have been able to drop along the line from the point and the flag, and thus stay on the green side of the hazard. He would have been a few yards closer to the camera, but he still wouldn't have had to carry any water, but rather skirt the yellow line.

 

 

Perfect. IMO the second photo is pretty much all one needs to know. Not much difference between last year and this year, though VJ was able to drop a bit closer than he would have been able to drop last year, and a bit left-er.

[cxx]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

[Sawgrass]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

The previous rule demanded that you drop back precisely on a line (if you didn't take S&D). There was no sideways latitude, which is now the cause of all the intrigue.

[sui generis]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

 

Think of 2018's back-on-the line as 2019's back-in-a-lane. A two driver width lane whose centerline is the "line."

[Argonne69]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

 

No, there was plenty of room back along the line in the rough leading to the cart path. If the pin had been in the back left section of the green it would have been a different story, and he'd likely would have dropped in one of the forward tee boxes.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

 

Think of 2018's back-on-the line as 2019's back-in-a-lane. A two driver width lane whose centerline is the "line."

Dotted white line down the center of the lane? Or worse, double-yellow?

[sui generis]

The interesting part was that the path back looked like it was in the hazard. As I recall he marked that with a tee. The one club length got him back out of the hazard and that's where he dropped.

 

Was that the same in the previous rule?

 

Think of 2018's back-on-the line as 2019's back-in-a-lane. A two driver width lane whose centerline is the "line."

Dotted white line down the center of the lane? Or worse, double-yellow?

 

Of the laudable simplifications of 2019, I'm not certain this is one. ;)

[bladehunter]

Did the tiger water ball at 17 today qualify for a drop on the walkway per this new loophole ? Guys on GC say yes and that he cost himself 2/3 shots for not knowing about it. Wondered if anyone noticed ?

 

His ball hit land on the back of the green at the beginning of the walkway ( nearest the green ) and slowly rolled. Off into the water.

[HitEmTrue]

Did the tiger water ball at 17 today qualify for a drop on the walkway per this new loophole ? Guys on GC say yes and that he cost himself 2/3 shots for not knowing about it. Wondered if anyone noticed ?

 

His ball hit land on the back of the green at the beginning of the walkway ( nearest the green ) and slowly rolled. Off into the water.

 

I think he could have! The ball is on the way into the water in this picture...

 

 

 

Do they have a local rule that requires use of drop zone or stroke and distance? Someone was suggesting they do in the Tour section. Can they make such a local rule that takes away options?

[bladehunter]

The announcers do not think they do. Brandel went and acted out the drop and then putted it up to 5 ft. Made sense to me. If so he cost himself 3 shots for sure.( accounting for erasing the 2 Nd water ball and all ).