2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[Seamus_McDuff]

Here’s the re-enactment.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/video/players-2019-tiger-woods-may-not-have-seen-drop?utm-tags=golf2408000&utm_source=Direct

[Mr. Bean]

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?

 

In the old Rules that was allowed, haven't checked the current model LR's.

 

EDIT: Yes, there is a model LR E-1.3 for a mandatory use of a DZ (or S&D).

[Sawgrass]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

[Newby]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well.

That video commentator said he could have used the DZ.

[nsxguy]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

[sui generis]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

 

Adjust your perception of BOL to read Back-On-the-Lane. The two club-width "lane." :)

[nsxguy]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

 

Adjust your perception of BOL to read Back-On-the-Lane. The two club-width "lane." :)

 

:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

 

"Back on the Lane" !!! That just might work !!!

 

Thanks :hi:

[Sawgrass]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

 

Adjust your perception of BOL to read Back-On-the-Lane. The two club-width "lane." :)

I promoted your “lane image” at a Metropolitan Golf Association ref meeting. I credited “a friend from North Carolina.” The concept was a big hit.

 

(Don’t worry, I didn’t say anything about “must/may/hurry.”)

[sui generis]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

 

Adjust your perception of BOL to read Back-On-the-Lane. The two club-width "lane." :)

I promoted your “lane image” at a Metropolitan Golf Association ref meeting. I credited “a friend from North Carolina.” The concept was a big hit.

 

(Don’t worry, I didn’t say anything about “must/may/hurry.”)

 

I belong to the David Staebler approach to the Rules. Figure out some way in which it makes sense to you. A couple of years ago at an 85+ he talked about, what at that time was, a red water hazard or an unplayable. "It's as easy as ABC." Fast forward to 2019, for a red penalty area or an unplayable. It's still as easy as ABC.

 

A = again

B = back-on-the-line (back-on-the-lane)

C = club-lengths (now lateral relief)

 

:)

[rogolf]

Absent some requirement to demand use of the drop zone, last year's back on the line drop would have worked as well. This year's just made it nicer.

 

Nice reenactment by Golf Channel, thanks for posting it!

 

I keep forgetting about the 1 club length wide area for BOL relief from the RA. :blush:

 

I'd noticed Tiger's ball had gone over the yellow line there but didn't see any replays.

 

However, I did see Li's ball and where it went in and thought right away about this rule BUT, as usual, forgot about the 1 CL and was thinking that BOL relief would've brought up a really touchy chip with a real possibility of fatting it, or just not hitting it hard enough to clear the water if the player was really trying to get it really close, or in, and putting it in the PA again.

 

Adjust your perception of BOL to read Back-On-the-Lane. The two club-width "lane." :)

I promoted your “lane image” at a Metropolitan Golf Association ref meeting. I credited “a friend from North Carolina.” The concept was a big hit.

 

(Don’t worry, I didn’t say anything about “must/may/hurry.”)

 

I belong to the David Staebler approach to the Rules. Figure out some way in which it makes sense to you. A couple of years ago at an 85+ he talked about, what at that time was, a red water hazard or an unplayable. "It's as easy as ABC." Fast forward to 2019, for a red penalty area or an unplayable. It's still as easy as ABC.

 

A = again

B = back-on-the-line (back-on-the-lane)

C = club-lengths (now lateral relief)

 

:)

I had the same, but different words:

A = as near as

B = behind

C = close

[Sawgrass]

At long, long last, a yellow PA clarification and a bonus club replacement clarification as well:

 

http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rulesarticles/clarifications-of-the-2019-rules-of-golf.html

 

[Mr. Bean]

It sure took its sweet time...

[dormie1360]

I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

[Mr. Bean]

> @dormie1360 said:

> I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

 

This is quite interesting:

'Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked.'

 

So if my driver's head is cracked by an outside influence I cannot replace the club. What happens when I break it into pieces with my next drive? Still no replacing..?

[dormie1360]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @dormie1360 said:

> > I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

>

> This is quite interesting:

> 'Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked.'

>

> So if my driver's head is cracked by an outside influence I cannot replace the club. What happens when I break it into pieces with my next drive? Still no replacing..?

 

Well...........I'm guessing the local rule replaces the first paragraph in 4.1b(3). The exception does not change.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @dormie1360 said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @dormie1360 said:

> > > I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

> >

> > This is quite interesting:

> > 'Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked.'

> >

> > So if my driver's head is cracked by an outside influence I cannot replace the club. What happens when I break it into pieces with my next drive? Still no replacing..?

>

> Well...........I'm guessing the local rule replaces the first paragraph in 4.1b(3). The exception does not change.

>

>

 

Yes, but this new Exception says that you are not allowed to replace a driver if its face is only cracked. That is not said so in the Rule.

[antip]

> @dormie1360 said:

> I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

 

Agree. I can't make sense of why this is up as a local rule only. You either need to change the rule on "fairness" grounds or you don't. What could this possibly have to do with "local" conditions?

Raises the prospect that the tours get favoured treatment over the golf that the 99 per cent play. Not a good look, some may think bifurcation.

[antip]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> It sure took its sweet time...

 

There's a new announced logic to the wait. They plan to do clarifications now on a quarterly basis, April being the first of the quarterlies. That says to me very clearly they are working on issues for July that are not yet resolved, and they are finding the questions coming in are producing genuine value in smoking out issues that require considered assessment by the folk on both sides of the ditch - and then the JRC process to finalise. I find this all makes total sense currently.

[Sawgrass]

People, new Clarification Local Rule G-9 says that 4.1b(3) is "modified" not "replaced." It says in part:

 

-------

If a player’s club is “broken or significantly damaged” during the round by the player or caddie, except in cases of abuse, the player may replace the club with any club under Rule 4.1b(4).

 

--------

 

This has no impact on the other aspects of 4.1b(3), such as the Exception, which covers a player's club being broken by an outside influence. This still exists as it is not a club "broken during the round by the player or caddie."

 

[Shilgy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> At long, long last, a yellow PA clarification and a bonus club replacement clarification as well:

>

> http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rulesarticles/clarifications-of-the-2019-rules-of-golf.html

>

 

Hmm, am I reading this correctly? And how many club golfers would know this. If your putt deflects off an insect into the hole the stroke does not count?

 

Rule 11:

 

Rule 11.1b:

 

1. How To Apply Exception 2 to Rule 11.1b:

Exception 2 to Rule 11.1b is to be applied using the “known or virtually certain” standard. Therefore, if there is knowledge or conclusive evidence that the ball played from the putting green accidentally hit a person, animal or movable obstruction on the putting green, the stroke does not count. (Added 12/2018)

2. Living Insects Are Animals:

Exception 2 to Rule 11.1b applies to living insects since they are animals. (Added 12/2018)

[Mr. Bean]

Shilgy, this is old news and published already in December. But yes, you have got it right. Do note that this is a change from last year.

 

Afa how many golfers know this I must say that as many as want to. Not knowing the Rules is a conscious choice.

[Shilgy]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> Shilgy, this is old news and published already in December. But yes, you have got it right. Do note that this is a change from last year.

>

> Afa how many golfers know this I must say that as many as want to. Not knowing the Rules is a conscious choice.

 

Thank you Mr Bean. I have always considered myself fairly conversant with the rules and for "normal" occurrences and everyday play I was. With the help of this forum I dove into them a bit more with this edition of the changes. A long ways to go though.

 

Some of these more esoteric rules are new to me. And in an area of the world where we rarely have an insect that could/would deflect a ball this has never come up.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Shilgy said:

> Some of these more esoteric rules are new to me. And in an area of the world where we rarely have an insect that could/would deflect a ball this has never come up.

 

Interesting. Here in Finland there are worms and snails often on the greens in the morning and those are capable of deflecting a ball if not removed from the line of play. Also wasps and bumble bees are not an uncommon appearance around here.

 

This is actually a very interesting change. Previously any deflection by any kind of insect was just a rub of the green and the stroke was not cancelled. Reason for this was explained to me many years ago and according to that explanation insects were ruled out from animals in this particular case because they may be very small and this way any discussion whether a tiny insects had caused the ball to deflect could be avoided. Now this idea has been buried and we are ready for those discussions to emerge. :smiley:

[antip]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Some of these more esoteric rules are new to me. And in an area of the world where we rarely have an insect that could/would deflect a ball this has never come up.

>

> Interesting. Here in Finland there are worms and snails often on the greens in the morning and those are capable of deflecting a ball if not removed from the line of play. Also wasps and bumble bees are not an uncommon appearance around here.

>

> This is actually a very interesting change. Previously any deflection by any kind of insect was just a rub of the green and the stroke was not cancelled. Reason for this was explained to me many years ago and according to that explanation insects were ruled out from animals in this particular case because they may be very small and this way any discussion whether a tiny insects had caused the ball to deflect could be avoided. Now this idea has been buried and we are ready for those discussions to emerge. :smiley:

 

And they could be rich discussions indeed. We get times here when there are quite a lot of ants on the green, mostly very unlikely to redirect a ball but possible. So the course is unplayable?

And take these match play situations:

Scenario 1: you've just holed a super-tricky side hill sliding 3 metre putt and the opponent says "sorry, you ran over a patch of small ants just before falling in the hole, you have to replay the shot"; or

2: Sergio has just jerked another 4 inch putt past the hole but then says "oh I have to replay that because the ball clearly hit that ant there that is now lying stunned".

[Shilgy]

^^

And the ant says "stunned? That scrawny Spaniard hardly touched me".

[szaino]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @dormie1360 said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @dormie1360 said:

> > > > I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

> > >

> > > This is quite interesting:

> > > 'Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked.'

> > >

> > > So if my driver's head is cracked by an outside influence I cannot replace the club. What happens when I break it into pieces with my next drive? Still no replacing..?

> >

> > Well...........I'm guessing the local rule replaces the first paragraph in 4.1b(3). The exception does not change.

> >

> >

>

> Yes, but this new Exception says that you are not allowed to replace a driver if its face is only cracked. That is not said so in the Rule.

 

To help avoid some confusion, here is the "clarification."

**_Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked._**

 

Based upon the way drivers are now designed and function, a cracked clubhead ( ie driver) is arguably one of the more significant damages that could possibly exist. Not only would it have a material effect on the way the club works, but also poses a safety issue if used.

 

The USGA is way off base with this one.

[Mr. Bean]

> @szaino said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @dormie1360 said:

> > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > @dormie1360 said:

> > > > > I bet the tours will implement the new local rule G-9. They probably asked for it.

> > > >

> > > > This is quite interesting:

> > > > 'Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked.'

> > > >

> > > > So if my driver's head is cracked by an outside influence I cannot replace the club. What happens when I break it into pieces with my next drive? Still no replacing..?

> > >

> > > Well...........I'm guessing the local rule replaces the first paragraph in 4.1b(3). The exception does not change.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Yes, but this new Exception says that you are not allowed to replace a driver if its face is only cracked. That is not said so in the Rule.

>

> To help avoid some confusion, here is the "clarification."

> **_Exception: A club face or clubhead is not “broken or significantly damaged” solely because it is cracked._**

>

> Based upon the way drivers are now designed and function, a cracked clubhead ( ie driver) is arguably one of the more significant damages that could possibly exist. Not only would it have a material effect on the way the club works, but also poses a safety issue if used.

>

> The USGA is way off base with this one.

 

My primary concern is that if a player's driver's face is accidentally (or even deliberately) cracked by someone else than the player himself (or his caddie) the player may not change that club. However, it is very likely that one or more next strokes with that club will render it useless and only then it is damaged according to this new Exception. Unfortunately for the player that club was damaged in the normal course of play and may not be replaced.

 

To me this makes zero sense.

[Sawgrass]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

 

> My primary concern is that if a player's driver's face is accidentally (or even deliberately) cracked by someone else than the player himself (or his caddie) the player may not change that club. However, it is very likely that one or more next strokes with that club will render it useless and only then it is damaged according to this new Exception. Unfortunately for the player that club was damaged in the normal course of play and may not be replaced.

>

> To me this makes zero sense.

 

I think you think it makes zero sense because you're not understanding the rule.

 

A player MAY chose to replace a club that has been damaged by an outside influence according to the following Exception within 4.1b(3). Nothing in the new Local Rule G-9 relfects on that right, not even the description of what damage means (because the damage description is limited to "For the purposes of this Local Rule" which only addresses damage done by the player or caddie. Read the exception again:

 

Exception - Replacing Damaged Club When Player Did Not Cause Damage: If a player’s club is damaged during the round (including while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a) (see Rule 4.1a(2)) by an outside influence or natural forces or by any person other than the player or his or her caddie:

 

The player may replace the damaged club with any club under Rule 4.1b(4).

 

But when the player does so, the player must immediately take the damaged club out of play, using the procedure in Rule 4.1c(1).

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

>

> > My primary concern is that if a player's driver's face is accidentally (or even deliberately) cracked by someone else than the player himself (or his caddie) the player may not change that club. However, it is very likely that one or more next strokes with that club will render it useless and only then it is damaged according to this new Exception. Unfortunately for the player that club was damaged in the normal course of play and may not be replaced.

> >

> > To me this makes zero sense.

>

> I think you think it makes zero sense because you're not understanding the rule.

>

> A player MAY chose to replace a club that has been damaged by an outside influence according to the following Exception within 4.1b(3). Nothing in the new Local Rule G-9 relfects on that right, not even the description of what damage means (because the damage description is limited to "For the purposes of this Local Rule" which only addresses damage done by the player or caddie. Read the exception again:

>

> Exception - Replacing Damaged Club When Player Did Not Cause Damage: If a player’s club is damaged during the round (including while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a) (see Rule 4.1a(2)) by an outside influence or natural forces or by any person other than the player or his or her caddie:

>

> The player may replace the damaged club with any club under Rule 4.1b(4).

>

> But when the player does so, the player must immediately take the damaged club out of play, using the procedure in Rule 4.1c(1).

>

 

Ok, now I got it! Thanks!

 

But it still strikes me as odd why the meaning of 'damaged' should be different depending on who creates the damage. If I now understand this correctly a club may not be replaced under G-9 if the club face is only cracked but the player must wait until the face breaks into peaces, meaning he will definitively eventually hit a bad or terribly bad stroke with that cracked face. Still sounds peculiar to me.

[Sawgrass]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> >

> > > My primary concern is that if a player's driver's face is accidentally (or even deliberately) cracked by someone else than the player himself (or his caddie) the player may not change that club. However, it is very likely that one or more next strokes with that club will render it useless and only then it is damaged according to this new Exception. Unfortunately for the player that club was damaged in the normal course of play and may not be replaced.

> > >

> > > To me this makes zero sense.

> >

> > I think you think it makes zero sense because you're not understanding the rule.

> >

> > A player MAY chose to replace a club that has been damaged by an outside influence according to the following Exception within 4.1b(3). Nothing in the new Local Rule G-9 relfects on that right, not even the description of what damage means (because the damage description is limited to "For the purposes of this Local Rule" which only addresses damage done by the player or caddie. Read the exception again:

> >

> > Exception - Replacing Damaged Club When Player Did Not Cause Damage: If a player’s club is damaged during the round (including while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a) (see Rule 4.1a(2)) by an outside influence or natural forces or by any person other than the player or his or her caddie:

> >

> > The player may replace the damaged club with any club under Rule 4.1b(4).

> >

> > But when the player does so, the player must immediately take the damaged club out of play, using the procedure in Rule 4.1c(1).

> >

>

> Ok, now I got it! Thanks!

>

> But it still strikes me as odd why the meaning of 'damaged' should be different depending on who creates the damage. If I now understand this correctly a club may not be replaced under G-9 if the club face is only cracked but the player must wait until the face breaks into peaces, meaning he will definitively eventually hit a bad or terribly bad stroke with that cracked face. Still sounds peculiar to me.

I have no explanation for your remaining issue, I am similarly confused by it. It’s so specific, I suspect there must be a reason we don’t see.