2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[nsxguy]

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.

 

The logic behind penalizing or not ? Or the logic of the severity of the penalty ?

 

For the former it sounds simple enough. You were willing to take a penalty and found out it wasn't a penalty. Net-net you did nothing wrong by picking it up willing to proceed via penalty. But if you thought "free relief" & were wrong, you moved a ball in play. Penalty.

 

For the latter, it seems the punishment doesn't fit the crime. :dntknw:

[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.

 

The logic behind penalizing or not ? Or the logic of the severity of the penalty ?

 

For the former it sounds simple enough. You were willing to take a penalty and found out it wasn't a penalty. Net-net you did nothing wrong by picking it up willing to proceed via penalty. But if you thought "free relief" & were wrong, you moved a ball in play. Penalty.

 

For the latter, it seems the punishment doesn't fit the crime. :dntknw:

 

Well, the 2PS case makes perfect sense as explained in the Interpretation, although it is a bit harsh, I agree. Then again, a player should decide what he wants to do and under which Rule before he picks his ball up. BUT this same logic does not work the other way round and that is what I cannot understand. IMO if a player decides to take the unplayable then he should be subject to one stroke penalty as soon as he picks his ball up. No penalty just does not make any sense.

[antip]

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.

Sawgrass, thank you for the challenge. In my mind, the 'logic' goes as follows:

When your ball is in play, the fundamental principle is play the ball as it lies unless you are operating under a Rule that authorises a different approach. Consequently, if you lift your ball without such authority, you face a penalty. That is the unstated (in those terms) rule of golf. Subsequently, the actual form of the penalty will depend on the exact circumstances and is potentially influenced by precisely what you do next (and the possibilities are myriad).

 

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

I note also there is always one rule available that you can apply anytime during play (at a penalty cost of one penalty stroke) if you find you have lifted without other (correct) authority under a rule - stroke and distance - and it doesn't matter whether you know where your ball is or however it got to its current position (which may be your hand).

 

Another issue that I think reared its head is the question how come you cannot just take one shot penalty unplayable relief if you have lifted your ball under a free relief rule that it turns out was not available or which was simply a misunderstanding on your part. The answer is you cannot 'back into' unplayable relief, it can only be taken prospectively, with intent, before the ball is lifted. And this relies on player integrity.

 

And to pick up the discussion in your last paragraph, I'm not in any way suggesting the 'worst scenario' operates, I'm saying you need to follow the rules/interpretations to work out whatever applies.

[sui generis]

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.

Sawgrass, thank you for the challenge. In my mind, the 'logic' goes as follows:

When your ball is in play, the fundamental principle is play the ball as it lies unless you are operating under a Rule that authorises a different approach. Consequently, if you lift your ball without such authority, you face a penalty. That is the unstated (in those terms) rule of golf. Subsequently, the actual form of the penalty will depend on the exact circumstances and is potentially influenced by precisely what you do next (and the possibilities are myriad).

 

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

I note also there is always one rule available that you can apply anytime during play (at a penalty cost of one penalty stroke) if you find you have lifted without other (correct) authority under a rule - stroke and distance - and it doesn't matter whether you know where your ball is or however it got to its current position (which may be your hand).

 

Another issue that I think reared its head is the question how come you cannot just take one shot penalty unplayable relief if you have lifted your ball under a free relief rule that it turns out was not available or which was simply a misunderstanding on your part. The answer is you cannot 'back into' unplayable relief, it can only be taken prospectively, with intent, before the ball is lifted. And this relies on player integrity.

 

And to pick up the discussion in your last paragraph, I'm not in any way suggesting the 'worst scenario' operates, I'm saying you need to follow the rules/interpretations to work out whatever applies.

 

Thanks, antip. You've supplied a credible "why" to a query I sent USGA a couple of years ago.

 

I was called to the scene of the crime to find a young player deep in the woods with a ball in his hand. The rest of the story is tortuous. At scoring his coach argued that Kevin was simply exercising his right to lift the ball from an unplayable situation.

 

To his credit, young Kevin admitted he didn't really know why he'd picked up the ball. We worked out a score for the hole and most everyone went home happy.

 

I emailed USGA who, after some consideration, confirmed that without "intent" R28 couldn't function. I see the same in our new R19.

[Mr. Bean]

 

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

 

Point b does not follow the logic of point a, IMO.

 

 

 

I note also there is always one rule available that you can apply anytime during play (at a penalty cost of one penalty stroke) if you find you have lifted without other (correct) authority under a rule - stroke and distance - and it doesn't matter whether you know where your ball is or however it got to its current position (which may be your hand).

 

 

That is correct but where is the logic in the case of picking up a ball in play thinking there is a free relief when all the other options give you an extra penalty? And what is the meaning of ’no need for a reference point’ as I asked before?

[Mr. Bean]

I was called to the scene of the crime to find a young player deep in the woods with a ball in his hand. The rest of the story is tortuous. At scoring his coach argued that Kevin was simply exercising his right to lift the ball from an unplayable situation.

 

To his credit, young Kevin admitted he didn't really know why he'd picked up the ball. We worked out a score for the hole and most everyone went home happy.

 

I emailed USGA who, after some consideration, confirmed that without "intent" R28 couldn't function. I see the same in our new R19.

 

So, when changing the Rule to invoke you can discard the 'intent' afa R19 is concerned but not when eg. 16 is concerned..? Sounds pretty illogical to me. After all, in neither of the situations the player is not yet committed to anything as the ball is still in his hand.

[sui generis]

I was called to the scene of the crime to find a young player deep in the woods with a ball in his hand. The rest of the story is tortuous. At scoring his coach argued that Kevin was simply exercising his right to lift the ball from an unplayable situation.

 

To his credit, young Kevin admitted he didn't really know why he'd picked up the ball. We worked out a score for the hole and most everyone went home happy.

 

I emailed USGA who, after some consideration, confirmed that without "intent" R28 couldn't function. I see the same in our new R19.

 

So, when changing the Rule to invoke you can discard the 'intent' afa R19 is concerned but not when eg. 16 is concerned..? Sounds pretty illogical to me. After all, in neither of the situations the player is not yet committed to anything as the ball is still in his hand.

 

I'm not smart enough to untangle that one. :)

[Mr. Bean]

I was called to the scene of the crime to find a young player deep in the woods with a ball in his hand. The rest of the story is tortuous. At scoring his coach argued that Kevin was simply exercising his right to lift the ball from an unplayable situation.

 

To his credit, young Kevin admitted he didn't really know why he'd picked up the ball. We worked out a score for the hole and most everyone went home happy.

 

I emailed USGA who, after some consideration, confirmed that without "intent" R28 couldn't function. I see the same in our new R19.

 

So, when changing the Rule to invoke you can discard the 'intent' afa R19 is concerned but not when eg. 16 is concerned..? Sounds pretty illogical to me. After all, in neither of the situations the player is not yet committed to anything as the ball is still in his hand.

 

I'm not smart enough to untangle that one. :)

 

Nor am I... :swoon:

[nsxguy]

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, (relief options for R 16) getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2a (simply unplayable S&D option) and no penalty under Rule 9.4b, (This Rule, moving ball in play) as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a. (unplayable S&D)

 

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.

 

Since this is specific to picking up the ball in play to take free relief and then changing your mind,,,,,,,, it certainly seems as a lot of this is redundant. This option surely could have just said "Directly take stroke-and-distance relief",,,,,,,,, not true ?

 

Now I have no idea why they wouldn't just let the player place it where it was under 1 stroke under 9.4 and be done with it but, it appears that the powers that be decided that they needed to explain themselves here and, in this specific case, decided the penalty procedure that would be fairest/most reasonable/closest would be "Unplayable",,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and they felt they had to explain.

 

ANY drop taken, regardless of what Rule it is under, is based on establishing a "reference point". Isn't that correct ?

 

So perhaps they simply decided that under this specific option, they were mandating the player MUST take an "unplayable" and since an unplayable has options and THIS situation, if chosen, does NOT, they felt they had to explain that the unplayable RP was NOT a choice. Perhaps it's nothing more sinister than that ?

 

Once you get to the S&D area of course, you must establish a "reference point" there so you can drop within 1 cl.

 

That sound right ? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

[antip]

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

 

Point b does not follow the logic of point a, IMO.

 

Nor is there any reason why they should, they are quite different issues. In a. there was no authority available to lift. In b. there were two separate authorities to lift when the player lifted, the one initially chosen and another the player was not then aware of. The rules tell us both remain available prior to hitting the point of no return (when a ball is put into play). This issue is not changing in 2019.

 

The only other explanatory material I can point you to is http://generalarea.org/ewExternalFiles/When%20May%20a%20Player%20Change%20Options%20-%202019V11.pdf

[Mr. Bean]

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

 

Point b does not follow the logic of point a, IMO.

 

Nor is there any reason why they should, they are quite different issues. In a. there was no authority available to lift. In b. there were two separate authorities to lift when the player lifted, the one initially chosen and another the player was not then aware of. The rules tell us both remain available prior to hitting the point of no return (when a ball is put into play). This issue is not changing in 2019.

 

 

'In a. there was no authority available to lift' ..? Sure there was, R19.2, that is always an option (at least 19.2a).

[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, (relief options for R 16) getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2a (simply unplayable S&D option) and no penalty under Rule 9.4b, (This Rule, moving ball in play) as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a. (unplayable S&D)

 

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.

 

Since this is specific to picking up the ball in play to take free relief and then changing your mind,,,,,,,, it certainly seems as a lot of this is redundant. This option surely could have just said "Directly take stroke-and-distance relief",,,,,,,,, not true ?

 

Now I have no idea why they wouldn't just let the player place it where it was under 1 stroke under 9.4 and be done with it but, it appears that the powers that be decided that they needed to explain themselves here and, in this specific case, decided the penalty procedure that would be fairest/most reasonable/closest would be "Unplayable",,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and they felt they had to explain.

 

ANY drop taken, regardless of what Rule it is under, is based on establishing a "reference point". Isn't that correct ?

 

So perhaps they simply decided that under this specific option, they were mandating the player MUST take an "unplayable" and since an unplayable has options and THIS situation, if chosen, does NOT, they felt they had to explain that the unplayable RP was NOT a choice. Perhaps it's nothing more sinister than that ?

 

Once you get to the S&D area of course, you must establish a "reference point" there so you can drop within 1 cl.

 

That sound right ? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

Not really, no.

 

'...as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.' (Int 9.4b/6

 

What is a 'new' reference point? That seems to be the crux of that Interpretation and I do not understand it.

[nsxguy]

This ONE option "Changing your mind" (for moving a ball in play).

 

Follow/consider it Unplayable.

 

BUT

 

do NOT use any other unplayable option other than S&D. Therefore no need for a reference point (as in the other unplayable options). i.e. just an explanation (unnecessary though it may be).

 

That's all I got. :dntknw:

[antip]

I note also there is always one rule available that you can apply anytime during play (at a penalty cost of one penalty stroke) if you find you have lifted without other (correct) authority under a rule - stroke and distance - and it doesn't matter whether you know where your ball is or however it got to its current position (which may be your hand).

 

 

That is correct but where is the logic in the case of picking up a ball in play thinking there is a free relief when all the other options give you an extra penalty? And what is the meaning of ’no need for a reference point’ as I asked before?

 

I'm not following your first question at all.

On the second reference point question, there is history here, and it has been complicated by 2019 rules making the term a key feature for the new R14 procedures.

 

A curious feature of Int 9.4/6 is it borrows virtually verbatim (minor new language adjustment) the answer in D18-2/12.5 even though that was a different question. But speaking more generally, if you lift your ball other than with intent to proceed under the UB rule and subsequently decide you wish to take unplayable relief you can no longer take lateral or BOL relief because those options only apply when the ball is on the course and in a known location. The rules for a long time have explained this by language of these options not available because the ball does not have a reference point on the course. You can only proceed with those options when the ball has been returned to the course.

 

I hope this helps you get over this issue, because I don't think I've got any further explanation.

[antip]

 

 

'In a. there was no authority available to lift' ..? Sure there was, R19.2, that is always an option (at least 19.2a).

There was no free relief authority, the original point was about having to take a penalty. You pick your ball up thinking you have free relief available and there is no free relief available you have no option but to proceed under penalty. That is an entirely different situation to the b. situation I presented.

[Mr. Bean]

But speaking more generally, if you lift your ball other than with intent to proceed under the UB rule and subsequently decide you wish to take unplayable relief you can no longer take lateral or BOL relief because those options only apply when the ball is on the course and in a known location.

 

 

That is not correct at all. See Int 9.4b/6 :

 

'Directly take relief under Rule 19.2b or c, without replacing the ball and using the spot where the original ball lay to determine the reference point for the relief procedure, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2 and an additional penalty of ...'

 

There are also other cases where the exact location of the ball is not known and R19.2b and c are available.

[antip]

But speaking more generally, if you lift your ball other than with intent to proceed under the UB rule and subsequently decide you wish to take unplayable relief you can no longer take lateral or BOL relief because those options only apply when the ball is on the course and in a known location.

 

 

That is not correct at all. See Int 9.4b/6 :

 

'Directly take relief under Rule 19.2b or c, without replacing the ball and using the spot where the original ball lay to determine the reference point for the relief procedure, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2 and an additional penalty of ...'

 

There are also other cases where the exact location of the ball is not known and R19.2b and c are available.

 

Er, that's kind of the whole point, additional penalties are required to get a reference point back on the course. The additional penalty is under 9.4b which requires the ball to be replaced on the original spot. But the thoughtful RBs just say, seeing you want to take lateral or BOL relief but your ball is not where it needs to be to do that, we'll just save you the time of actually replacing and just charge you the penalty as though you did replace.

 

So I'm labelling your "not correct" statement as, wait for it, not correct.

 

Is there anything else you would like help on? And I'm especially interested in your examples of UB BOL or lateral relief which are available without the player having a ball in play in a known position on the course and that would not involve additional penalties - if you would like to share them with all readers.

[Colin L]

 

'...as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.' (Int 9.4b/6

 

What is a 'new' reference point? That seems to be the crux of that Interpretation and I do not understand it.

 

Back on the line and lateral relief for an unplayable ball both require you to establish a reference point relative to where the ball was lying. Stroke and distance does not because the reference point is already established - the spot from which you made your last stroke. That spot has no relationship to where the ball ended up and is not a new one in the sense that you don't have to establish where the ball lies and then find the reference point.

[Mr. Bean]

But speaking more generally, if you lift your ball other than with intent to proceed under the UB rule and subsequently decide you wish to take unplayable relief you can no longer take lateral or BOL relief because those options only apply when the ball is on the course and in a known location.

 

 

That is not correct at all. See Int 9.4b/6 :

 

'Directly take relief under Rule 19.2b or c, without replacing the ball and using the spot where the original ball lay to determine the reference point for the relief procedure, getting a penalty of one stroke under Rule 19.2 and an additional penalty of ...'

 

There are also other cases where the exact location of the ball is not known and R19.2b and c are available.

 

Er, that's kind of the whole point, additional penalties are required to get a reference point back on the course. The additional penalty is under 9.4b which requires the ball to be replaced on the original spot. But the thoughtful RBs just say, seeing you want to take lateral or BOL relief but your ball is not where it needs to be to do that, we'll just save you the time of actually replacing and just charge you the penalty as though you did replace.

 

So I'm labelling your "not correct" statement as, wait for it, not correct.

 

Is there anything else you would like help on? And I'm especially interested in your examples of UB BOL or lateral relief which are available without the player having a ball in play in a known position on the course and that would not involve additional penalties - if you would like to share them with all readers.

 

My statement was perfectly correct, yours was incorrect as it was far too incomplete to be correct.

 

Afa an example of a case where BOL and lateral relief is allowed even though exact location of the ball is not known, do read 9.4a/1, 2nd example.

[Mr. Bean]

'...as the player does not need to establish a new reference point before taking relief under Rule 19.2a.' (Int 9.4b/6

 

What is a 'new' reference point? That seems to be the crux of that Interpretation and I do not understand it.

 

Back on the line and lateral relief for an unplayable ball both require you to establish a reference point relative to where the ball was lying. Stroke and distance does not because the reference point is already established - the spot from which you made your last stroke. That spot has no relationship to where the ball ended up and is not a new one in the sense that you don't have to establish where the ball lies and then find the reference point.

 

Ok, I can understand that for the BOL relief but in lateral relief the spot where the ball lay IS the reference point.

 

Still that does not answer my question why BOL and lateral reliefs both cost a player one penalty more than S&D even though in all those cases the player should earn one PS for lifting his ball in play and then deciding not to use the free relief he planned to, and another PS for unplayable ball.

 

Sorry, I just don't get it.

[antip]

 

Sorry, I just don't get it.

That's an easy one to agree on.

[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.

Sawgrass, thank you for the challenge. In my mind, the 'logic' goes as follows:

When your ball is in play, the fundamental principle is play the ball as it lies unless you are operating under a Rule that authorises a different approach. Consequently, if you lift your ball without such authority, you face a penalty. That is the unstated (in those terms) rule of golf. Subsequently, the actual form of the penalty will depend on the exact circumstances and is potentially influenced by precisely what you do next (and the possibilities are myriad).

 

Now applying this to the sort of situations we have been discussing:

a. your ball is embedded in the general area and you lift assuming free relief is available. But the rules (as clarified for anyone in doubt) affirm that there is a specific circumstance where such free relief is not available. If you have lifted your embedded ball without checking, and you are in that specific circumstance, then you cannot avoid a penalty. (Moral, do not lift your ball in play without being very clear that you have authority to do whatever you are planning to do.)

b. your ball is in an unplayable lie and you lift to take unplayable relief. Before putting a ball back into play, you become aware that the ball was in GUR. Because R16 also provided a pathway for lifting your ball, and your subsequent actions haven't reached the point of no return, you can continue under that other authorising rule.

 

I note also there is always one rule available that you can apply anytime during play (at a penalty cost of one penalty stroke) if you find you have lifted without other (correct) authority under a rule - stroke and distance - and it doesn't matter whether you know where your ball is or however it got to its current position (which may be your hand).

 

Another issue that I think reared its head is the question how come you cannot just take one shot penalty unplayable relief if you have lifted your ball under a free relief rule that it turns out was not available or which was simply a misunderstanding on your part. The answer is you cannot 'back into' unplayable relief, it can only be taken prospectively, with intent, before the ball is lifted. And this relies on player integrity.

 

And to pick up the discussion in your last paragraph, I'm not in any way suggesting the 'worst scenario' operates, I'm saying you need to follow the rules/interpretations to work out whatever applies.

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

[antip]

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Thank you, and likewise. That is a far more pleasant way to start the year than the bizarre, constant nit-picking and sniping from one particular person that had previously asked for help.

[fairways4life]

Digging this back up .....

 

Has anyone received a reply from the USGA/R&A? I emailed them on Dec. 17th and was told I would get a reply within 3-4 business days. But only the sound of silence so far.

 

Hey USGA, "While we're young!" Lol.

 

I assume that if anyone received a reply that they would update here. But just figured I'd check back in.

[Augster]

Digging this back up .....

 

Has anyone received a reply from the USGA/R&A? I emailed them on Dec. 17th and was told I would get a reply within 3-4 business days. But only the sound of silence so far.

 

Hey USGA, "While we're young!" Lol.

 

I assume that if anyone received a reply that they would update here. But just figured I'd check back in.

 

A few years ago I got blacklisted by the USGA for asking questions. I still send in a question from time to time, but they never get back to me. I only send questions, now, that can’t be close to definitively answered here on WRX. And I send them to see if I’m still on the blacklist. I hope to roll off the list after a couple of years and get answers to my previous questions.

 

In other words, try not to hold your breath.

[bladehunter]

Digging this back up .....

 

Has anyone received a reply from the USGA/R&A? I emailed them on Dec. 17th and was told I would get a reply within 3-4 business days. But only the sound of silence so far.

 

Hey USGA, "While we're young!" Lol.

 

I assume that if anyone received a reply that they would update here. But just figured I'd check back in.

 

A few years ago I got blacklisted by the USGA for asking questions. I still send in a question from time to time, but they never get back to me. I only send questions, now, that can’t be close to definitively answered here on WRX. And I send them to see if I’m still on the blacklist. I hope to roll off the list after a couple of years and get answers to my previous questions.

 

In other words, try not to hold your breath.

 

Wow. Do you still pay a membership ?

[fairways4life]

******UPDATE!!!!!********

 

I finally heard back from the USGA today. It was basically a one line reply that thanked me for the inquiry and said that it was an issue that they were currently discussing and that they hoped to have some clarification on it soon. That was it.

 

So it wasn't much. But at least it was something. I'm guessing they have probably gotten a lot of emails about this very same issue.

[antip]

******UPDATE!!!!!********

 

I finally heard back from the USGA today. It was basically a one line reply that thanked me for the inquiry and said that it was an issue that they were currently discussing and that they hoped to have some clarification on it soon. That was it.

 

So it wasn't much. But at least it was something. I'm guessing they have probably gotten a lot of emails about this very same issue.

Thank you. I read this as clear code for "this outcome (the new PA BOL rule potentially enabling drop on the green side of the PA) was not intended, we are formulating the 'where to from here' plan". I see two categories of option. 1. Kill it - restore the limitation of behind the PA for any PA BOL relief. Or 2. Live with it - but provide MLR so clubs can turn it off where they want/need to. Any change, though, must be carefully considered for any unintended consequence elsewhere, or history will repeat.

[rogolf]

******UPDATE!!!!!********

 

I finally heard back from the USGA today. It was basically a one line reply that thanked me for the inquiry and said that it was an issue that they were currently discussing and that they hoped to have some clarification on it soon. That was it.

 

So it wasn't much. But at least it was something. I'm guessing they have probably gotten a lot of emails about this very same issue.

Thank you. I read this as clear code for "this outcome (the new PA BOL rule potentially enabling drop on the green side of the PA) was not intended, we are formulating the 'where to from here' plan". I see two categories of option. 1. Kill it - restore the limitation of behind the PA for any PA BOL relief. Or 2. Live with it - but provide MLR so clubs can turn it off where they want/need to. Any change, though, must be carefully considered for any unintended consequence elsewhere, or history will repeat.

And any answer needs to be reviewed/approved by R&A and JRC. It's a Rules issue, not only an USGA issue.

[antip]

And any answer needs to be reviewed/approved by R&A and JRC. It's a Rules issue, not only an USGA issue.

Absolutely!