2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[bladehunter]

We have a par 3 like this on my home course. I asked my pro when playing with him Sunday how it would be marked. Or how the relief will work. It’s marked yellow all the way up and around front of the green now. Left side of green ( 3/4 island green ) has water adjoining it too . Left side of green is marked red. His answer was “ I guess I’ll just mark it all red ...”. I’m at a loss. Is this correct ? If so it takes most of the teeth out of the hole.

[Mr. Bean]

We have a par 3 like this on my home course. I asked my pro when playing with him Sunday how it would be marked. Or how the relief will work. It's marked yellow all the way up and around front of the green now. Left side of green ( 3/4 island green ) has water adjoining it too . Left side of green is marked red. His answer was " I guess I'll just mark it all red ...". I'm at a loss. Is this correct ? If so it takes most of the teeth out of the hole.

 

Marking of an island green depends on the view of the Committee (and the course designer...). In many (if not most) cases the front part is marked yellow and the back part is red. In some cases the entire island is yellow, especially if the island is large. IMO marking an island green red all the way would be justified only if the island is very small or/and the distance to reach it is very long. Also marking an island all yellow tends to somewhat slow the play.

 

Just to give some perspective. If the island is all red the player only has to concern the direction he hits his ball. In order to get onto the island the ball has to cross last the edge of that island red marking and he gets to drop his ball onto the island and has a fair chance to a bogey. If that island is all yellow he has to stop his ball onto the island, which makes the shot much more demanding. Thus a half yellow - half red combination is a fairly good compromise, at least IMO.

 

Here is an example from my home course: http://www.golftalma.fi/kentat/master/master-6/

 

Today it is marked yellow in the front approximately until the 130 meter line and after that it is marked red. So you need to reach the green but if you hit it long (which happens extremely seldom as the island is rather large and the distance relatively short) you will be able to drop onto the island.

[bladehunter]

We have a par 3 like this on my home course. I asked my pro when playing with him Sunday how it would be marked. Or how the relief will work. It's marked yellow all the way up and around front of the green now. Left side of green ( 3/4 island green ) has water adjoining it too . Left side of green is marked red. His answer was " I guess I'll just mark it all red ...". I'm at a loss. Is this correct ? If so it takes most of the teeth out of the hole.

 

Marking of an island green depends on the view of the Committee (and the course designer...). In many (if not most) cases the front part is marked yellow and the back part is red. In some cases the entire island is yellow, especially if the island is large. IMO marking an island green red all the way would be justified only if the island is very small or/and the distance to reach it is very long. Also marking an island all yellow tends to somewhat slow the play.

 

Just to give some perspective. If the island is all red the player only has to concern the direction he hits his ball. In order to get onto the island the ball has to cross last the edge of that island red marking and he gets to drop his ball onto the island and has a fair chance to a bogey. If that island is all yellow he has to stop his ball onto the island, which makes the shot much more demanding. Thus a half yellow - half red combination is a fairly good compromise, at least IMO.

 

Here is an example from my home course: http://www.golftalma.fi/kentat/master/master-6/

 

Today it is marked yellow in the front approximately until the 130 meter line and after that it is marked red. So you need to reach the green but if you hit it long (which happens extremely seldom as the island is rather large and the distance relatively short) you will be able to drop onto the island.

 

Yep. That’s pretty much exactly how this one is currently marked. Long left is red. Right back corner is land and close OB.

 

I just wonder if he isn’t misunderstanding the new yellow scenario mentioned above. I’m not sure I understand it either. But I think it’s saying a yellow is now treated very similar to a red ? I think he assumes that too. I’d like to see it marked correctly, so how would a green just like you describe be marked and played in 2019?

 

Say you hit a ball and it touches land front and rolls back in. It’s marked yellow. Do you drop on the island in line with the tee ? Or as you do now behind the hazard ? And does that change for 2019?

[Mr. Bean]

Say you hit a ball and it touches land front and rolls back in. It's marked yellow. Do you drop on the island in line with the tee ? Or as you do now behind the hazard ? And does that change for 2019?

 

Well, that is what we have been discussing here. Today you need to take a new shot behind the WH but next year it could be different.

 

One thing that supports maintaining this current idea is that on an island green like the one I posted a picture of it would all depend on luck if one would be able to drop on the green side of a yellow Penalty Area. I'd just hate to accept that kind of approach.

[Sawgrass]

Say you hit a ball and it touches land front and rolls back in. It's marked yellow. Do you drop on the island in line with the tee ? Or as you do now behind the hazard ? And does that change for 2019?

 

Well, that is what we have been discussing here. Today you need to take a new shot behind the WH but next year it could be different.

 

One thing that supports maintaining this current idea is that on an island green like the one I posted a picture of it would all depend on luck if one would be able to drop on the green side of a yellow Penalty Area. I'd just hate to accept that kind of approach.

Bladehunter, I'll add that the Course Marking references in the new Official Guide come right out and say, "A Committee does not have to mark any penalty areas yellow. ": so this ends up being a choice.

 

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

[Colin L]

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

 

What reference can you give us in the 2019 rules that shows there cannot sometimes be a relief area on the green side as illustrated above? Second-guessing that the RBs made a mistake, didn't notice, won't like it and will change it etc excluded!

[Sawgrass]

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

 

What reference can you give us in the 2019 rules that shows there cannot be a relief area on the green side as illustrated above?

The only clear reference which I can currently point to resides in my conscience. If I have to make a ruling next week, I'll ignore my conscience, though it will nevertheless hurt.

[Sawgrass]

And I'll add . . . we may in fact know the true intentions of the RBs before 2019 comes along!

[Mr. Bean]

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

 

What reference can you give us in the 2019 rules that shows there cannot sometimes be a relief area on the green side as illustrated above? Second-guessing that the RBs made a mistake, didn't notice, won't like it and will change it etc excluded!

 

My reference would be all the discussions around the subject not only on this forum but all over the world among referees and rules enthusiasts...

[Colin L]

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

 

What reference can you give us in the 2019 rules that shows there cannot sometimes be a relief area on the green side as illustrated above? Second-guessing that the RBs made a mistake, didn't notice, won't like it and will change it etc excluded!

 

My reference would be all the discussions around the subject not only on this forum but all over the world among referees and rules enthusiasts...

 

But in all of those discussions, is anyone arguing that the rules as written prohibit dropping greenside for back on the line relief? Or are they rather all about a widespread dislike of the fact the the rules as written allow it?

 

My basic point is that we do know that there could be a legimate relief area on the green side of a penalty area because that is what the rules allow. I have yet to see - but would be relieved to see - any argument that this is not so. I have seen, on the other hand, much disapproval, disbelief even that it should be so, which is a different matter.

 

It will change if the RBs decide to change it. Till then, in the absence of such a change, it is as it is and no amount of discussion about the undesirability of it changes anything.

[Sawgrass]

And we collectively seem to not yet know whether a penalty area marked yellow might occasionally have a relief area on the green side of the penalty area in which to drop. (I'm hungry to learn the truth!)

 

What reference can you give us in the 2019 rules that shows there cannot sometimes be a relief area on the green side as illustrated above? Second-guessing that the RBs made a mistake, didn't notice, won't like it and will change it etc excluded!

 

My reference would be all the discussions around the subject not only on this forum but all over the world among referees and rules enthusiasts...

 

But in all of those discussions, is anyone arguing that the rules as written prohibit dropping greenside for back on the line relief? Or are they rather all about a widespread dislike of the fact the the rules as written allow it?

 

My basic point is that we do know that there could be a legimate relief area on the green side of a penalty area because that is what the rules allow. I have yet to see - but would be relieved to see - any argument that this is not so. I have seen, on the other hand, much disapproval, disbelief even that it should be so, which is a different matter.

 

It will change if the RBs decide to change it. Till then, in the absence of such a change, it is as it is and no amount of discussion about the undesirability of it changes anything.

Your strong stance is understood. But I wonder how you will feel if the RBs issue a "clarification" on this, rather than a change.

[SNIPERBBB]

 

Your strong stance is understood. But I wonder how you will feel if the RBs issue a "clarification" on this, rather than a change.

 

My experience in dealing with other sports is that clarifications are alright for the current year of play but past that, there has to be a change in the rule book or it will be forgotten or be subject to endless bouts of "Does the clarification still apply?" until either the Rules or Interpretations reflect the clarification. If the clarification is rescinded, see previous sentence.

[Colin L]

I assume there can't be any changes in the wording of any rule until a new edition comes out. A clarification of this matter would, I expect, be the way forward for the RBs but I'm not that bothered about the principle of it, to be honest.

[Augster]

I think they just overstepped and didn’t look back. In an OLD document, the “Explanations for Proposed Rule Changes”, they say about penalty areas that:

 

“and new Rule 17 will provide the same basic options for relief that exist under the current Rules”.

 

We all know the basic options. Drop behind yellow penalty areas.

 

In all their changing since that document came out (elimination of unlimited drops, must drop from knee height) I think they forgot their basic premise of “the same basic options for relief” that we all already know.

 

https://i.imgur.com/fTXkBfk.jpg

[antip]

 

It will change if the RBs decide to change it. Till then, in the absence of such a change, it is as it is and no amount of discussion about the undesirability of it changes anything.

Absolutely right.

One other observation on the island green options and handling approaches that has not yet been touched on: it is relatively common to create Dropping Zones to ensure that sheer luck or accident doesn't prevent relief being taken on the green side of a red penalty area. As touched on earlier, it is the Committee's responsibility to determine the colour of the PA and whether they wish to include Dropping Zones to produce the playing conditions they require. And if RBs don't change the current PA published rules for 2019, Committees will be able to require BOL relief for ANY PA (red or yellow) to be taken behind the PA through a local rule on any or all of their PAs. As such a Model Local Rule doesn't currently exist, an authority would need to be sought - and I would be amazed if such authority was not forthcoming.

[sui generis]

It will change if the RBs decide to change it. Till then, in the absence of such a change, it is as it is and no amount of discussion about the undesirability of it changes anything.

Absolutely right.

One other observation on the island green options and handling approaches that has not yet been touched on: it is relatively common to create Dropping Zones to ensure that sheer luck or accident doesn't prevent relief being taken on the green side of a red penalty area. As touched on earlier, it is the Committee's responsibility to determine the colour of the PA and whether they wish to include Dropping Zones to produce the playing conditions they require. And if RBs don't change the current PA published rules for 2019, Committees will be able to require BOL relief for ANY PA (red or yellow) to be taken behind the PA through a local rule on any or all of their PAs. As such a Model Local Rule doesn't currently exist, an authority would need to be sought - and I would be amazed if such authority was not forthcoming.

 

In the interim, a Committee could require the use of the DZ, I believe.

[antip]

I think they just overstepped and didn't look back. In an OLD document, the "Explanations for Proposed Rule Changes", they say about penalty areas that:

 

"and new Rule 17 will provide the same basic options for relief that exist under the current Rules".

 

We all know the basic options. Drop behind yellow penalty areas.

 

In all their changing since that document came out (elimination of unlimited drops, must drop from knee height) I think they forgot their basic premise of "the same basic options for relief" that we all already know.

 

https://i.imgur.com/fTXkBfk.jpg

Thank you for the reminder of that 2017 document. It is very clear that RBs intend that EVERY Committee can make lateral relief available on the green side of a PA (if that is last point of crossing the edge) by enabling any PA to be marked red. What we don't yet know is: a) whether this wrinkle that the 2019 rules also enable BOL relief to the side up to one club length on the green side of the PA is intended or not; and b) if RBs don't change it now, how they will affirm that clubs can require BOL relief to be taken behind the PA, should they choose to do so.

[Sawgrass]

Okay, now on to a new concern I have regarding 2019. As we've seen in the 12/18/18 clarifications, rule 16.3b is clarified as indicating there will be occasions in which an embedded ball in the general area has no reference point or relief area in the general area, and the player is therefore not entitled to embedded ball relief.

 

So now I'm imagining a player extracting his ball from the lip of a bunker, and then realizing that he gets no relief. That's where my question erupts:

 

He may of course replace the ball taking a 1sp for having illegally lifted it, but I would assume that in many cases a player would prefer not to hit a replaced ball that's deeply embedded and would instead prefer to take an unplayable ball penalty -- and drop, perhaps, back on the line behind the embedded mark,either inside or behind the bunker. My question becomes, does he do that just taking the 1sp for an unplayable, or does he add the additional penalty for having lifted his ball with the mistaken intention of taking free relief?

 

In 9.4b/6, the interpretation discusses a player lifting his ball with the intention to take free relief, and then deciding not to proceed "despite relief being available." It does not discuss when free relief is ultimately determined to be unavailable, the situation we have here -- though IMO the wording there seems to have an implication that things are different if there is no relief available. On the other hand, 1.3c (4) says at the end that "any penalty strokes a player gets for taking penalty relief . . . are always applied in addition to any other penalties." That clearly suggests that this poor guy ends up with 2 penalty strokes when, if his ball had been embedded an inch or two closer to the hole, he'd get none.

 

In 2018 this would have not been a penalty at all, one could drop just on either side of the embedded location and move happily on, penalty free.

 

Anyway, do we have a consensus that the player should get 2 total strokes of penalty in this situation, or does anyone think that 9.4b/6 suggests otherwise? (And who is going to look at that embedded ball location and not see just a hair of general area behind it, thereby allowing free relief?)

[Mr. Bean]

IMO the third bullet of that Int says it all. 2 penalty strokes.

[Sawgrass]

IMO the third bullet of that Int says it all. 2 penalty strokes.

Fair enough. What do you say to a player if he lifts such an embedded ball to take relief, asks you where he may drop, and when you ask him specifically what type of relief he is looking for he says, "All I know is that I definitely want relief. Help me figure out where it will be, then I'll decide if I want embedded ball or unplayable ball relief."

 

I wonder if this still qualifies as having lifted his ball to legally take unplayable relief, with just a 1sp.

[Mr. Bean]

I would ask him what was his intent, a free relief or an unplayable. Should he say he has no idea what he can have but he sure will not play from that lie I probably would advice him of the options of R19.2.

[Sawgrass]

I would ask him what was his intent, a free relief or an unplayable. Should he say he has no idea what he can have but he sure will not play from that lie I probably would advice him of the options of R19.2.

And only charge him one stroke, I presume.

 

I don't know why I'm getting so dizzy on this. Now I'm unsure what the deal is if a player lifts his ball expecting to take penalty relief and then becomes aware that free relief is an option. Is he still due a penalty if he wishes to take free relief because he had lifted his ball under another rule?

 

All and all I confess that I don't much like this stuff. I think I'd prefer it if a player, after lifting his ball, could do whatever he wanted under whatever rule he then preferred.

[Mr. Bean]

 

I don't know why I'm getting so dizzy on this. Now I'm unsure what the deal is if a player lifts his ball expecting to take penalty relief and then becomes aware that free relief is an option. Is he still due a penalty if he wishes to take free relief because he had lifted his ball under another rule?

 

 

See Int 19.2/4 for a definitive answer.

[antip]

I would ask him what was his intent, a free relief or an unplayable. Should he say he has no idea what he can have but he sure will not play from that lie I probably would advice him of the options of R19.2.

And only charge him one stroke, I presume.

 

It is one stroke only if the player uses the unplayable option that does not require a reference point, as discussed in I 9.4b/6. Otherwise, it is total of 2 penalty strokes.

[Sawgrass]

I don't know why I'm getting so dizzy on this. Now I'm unsure what the deal is if a player lifts his ball expecting to take penalty relief and then becomes aware that free relief is an option. Is he still due a penalty if he wishes to take free relief because he had lifted his ball under another rule?

 

 

See Int 19.2/4 for a definitive answer.

Thank you for this, it is very helpful. (While an embedded ball is not precisely an abnormal ground condition as 19.2/4 describes, it couldn't be closer and 20.3 would certainly take us there.)

[Sawgrass]

Antip, Mr. Bean,

 

I wonder if you agree with me that it's peculiar that:

 

If you lift your ball intending to take penalty relief and end up taking surprise free relief there is no penalty at all.

 

If you lift your ball intending to take free relief and end up forced to take surprise penalty relief, you under most relief options you will get twice the original penalty you would have originally suffered had you not been surprised.

 

I recall Thomas Pagel saying something along the lines of, "We take a look at the outcomes, and see if that's an outcome we like, and make adjustments from there." My main "memorization" technique for the rules in general is broadening my understanding of what is truly fair, and this one doesn't make the cut.

 

In any case, Antip, if I read between the lines on your post #54 (the question Mr. Bean did not respond directly to) I believe you are saying that if a player truly does not know specifically why he lifted a ball before he does so, he should be burdened by the worst case scenario. I'm not sure I like that so much either.

[Mr. Bean]

Antip, Mr. Bean,

 

I wonder if you agree with me that it's peculiar that:

 

If you lift your ball intending to take penalty relief and end up taking surprise free relief there is no penalty at all.

 

If you lift your ball intending to take free relief and end up forced to take surprise penalty relief, you under most relief options you will get twice the original penalty you would have originally suffered had you not been surprised.

 

 

I do agree that this sounds rather illogical. Maybe someone can explain the logic behind it, I cannot.

[Mr. Bean]

This is also something I cannot understand (last paragraph from Int 9.4b/6):

 

'Directly take stroke-and-distance relief, without dropping the ball under Rule 16.1b, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2a and no penalty under Rule 9.4b, as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.'

 

What has a reference point got to do with anything? The player has lost his right to lift the ball by R16.1b just the same as in previous paragraphs.

[Sawgrass]

This is also something I cannot understand (last paragraph from Int 9.4b/6):

 

'Directly take stroke-and-distance relief, without dropping the ball under Rule 16.1b, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2a and no penalty under Rule 9.4b, as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.'

 

What has a reference point got to do with anything? The player has lost his right to lift the ball by R16.1b just the same as in previous paragraphs.

It's also true that while someone might not have marked the ball prior to taking embedded ball relief, the turf condition most certainly would show the appropriate reference point, whether there was a mark or a ball there or not.

[Mr. Bean]

This is also something I cannot understand (last paragraph from Int 9.4b/6):

 

'Directly take stroke-and-distance relief, without dropping the ball under Rule 16.1b, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2a and no penalty under Rule 9.4b, as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.'

 

What has a reference point got to do with anything? The player has lost his right to lift the ball by R16.1b just the same as in previous paragraphs.

It's also true that while someone might not have marked the ball prior to taking embedded ball relief, the turf condition most certainly would show the appropriate reference point, whether there was a mark or a ball there or not.

 

Not to mention that replacing a ball requires some sort of information where a ball was lifted from. Or using the 2 cl unplayable ball relief with 2 PS.

 

So, where's the logic?