2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[nsxguy]

******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 got the exact same reply from the USGA and I would tend to agree with your "theory".

[fairways4life]

It's a bit shocking that this slipped through their grasp given how much time they had to mull over these new rules, have discussions and gather feedback. It was what, 2 years that an entire committee of rules experts had to nail this stuff down? Did they never recognize this loophole they left open?

 

I am by no means a rules expert and this idea of taking greenside relief from a yellow penalty area popped into my head within literally minutes of thinking about the new rule. And I'm no genius either. And I wasn't the first person to recognize this possible loophole. How in the heck did they miss this??

[bladehunter]

It's a bit shocking that this slipped through their grasp given how much time they had to mull over these new rules, have discussions and gather feedback. It was what, 2 years that an entire committee of rules experts had to nail this stuff down? Did they never recognize this loophole they left open?

 

I am by no means a rules expert and this idea of taking greenside relief from a yellow penalty area popped into my head within literally minutes of thinking about the new rule. And I'm no genius either. And I wasn't the first person to recognize this possible loophole. How in the heck did they miss this??

 

Exact same thing came to my mind when I read the response. Pretty shocking.

[Shilgy]

I do not think it is that shocking guys. The thing that threw them off was establishing a relief area as defined by the new rules. The old rule, of course was to drop a ball on the line keeping the spot last crossed and the pin. We all know that, You would drop on that line and the ball had to come to rest within two club lengths or you needed to redrop. So in their discussions they were still thinking about the line going back nut now you only have a one clublength area to drop in. It is easy to get so myopic on the issue that you fail to see the big picture.

 

Since everyone says they saw this issue "right away" why did no one ask the USGA when the new suggested rules changes were posted for discussion? Was this different from the suggested rule change?

[davep043]

How many books get released with typos? How much software gets released with little bugs and glitches? None of us is perfect, not a single individual, not a single organization, I don't expect perfection from anyone else.

[fairways4life]

I do not think it is that shocking guys. The thing that threw them off was establishing a relief area as defined by the new rules. The old rule, of course was to drop a ball on the line keeping the spot last crossed and the pin. We all know that, You would drop on that line and the ball had to come to rest within two club lengths or you needed to redrop. So in their discussions they were still thinking about the line going back nut now you only have a one clublength area to drop in. It is easy to get so myopic on the issue that you fail to see the big picture.

 

Since everyone says they saw this issue "right away" why did no one ask the USGA when the new suggested rules changes were posted for discussion? Was this different from the suggested rule change?

 

That's a good question. For me personally, when the new rules were first introduced I gave them a quick glance but pretty much took the approach that I would wait until it was closer to 2019 before really taking the time to learn them in depth. Then once I finally did take a more dedicated look (just a few weeks ago) I realized the issue at hand. So I noticed it "right away" in relation to when I first started really learning the new rule. Not "right away" in relation to when the new rule was first announced.

 

How did the issue go so long with nobody else (or not enough people or the "right" people) taking notice? No idea. Perhaps it was one of those not being able to see the forest for the trees sort of things.

[bladehunter]

I do not think it is that shocking guys. The thing that threw them off was establishing a relief area as defined by the new rules. The old rule, of course was to drop a ball on the line keeping the spot last crossed and the pin. We all know that, You would drop on that line and the ball had to come to rest within two club lengths or you needed to redrop. So in their discussions they were still thinking about the line going back nut now you only have a one clublength area to drop in. It is easy to get so myopic on the issue that you fail to see the big picture.

 

Since everyone says they saw this issue "right away" why did no one ask the USGA when the new suggested rules changes were posted for discussion? Was this different from the suggested rule change?

 

Honestly never heard this rule proposed before it was enacted ( not saying it wasn’t. Saying I didn’t see it ).

 

I followed this rule especially because we have 2 instances where it will matter on my home course. I still don’t know how it is marked etc. but am playing today and will see.

[bladehunter]

To clarify. Shocking more so that they respond to an email finally without an answer. Or hint that they have an answer and will release ASAP. Was kind of a “ oh crap. Let me get back to you on that “ answer.

[SNIPERBBB]

I would wager that the answer to this problem will probably come in the form of an Interpretation as it is a fairly unlikely scenario

 

Best case though I prefer changes in the actual rules whenever possible.

[davep043]

To clarify. Shocking more so that they respond to an email finally without an answer. Or hint that they have an answer and will release ASAP. Was kind of a " oh crap. Let me get back to you on that " answer.

That doesn't surprise me at all. I'd bet that rule-related inquiries are up by fact of 10, or maybe 100, as compared with the same time frame last year. I'd also bet that they didn't increase staffing by a factor of 10, so responses will probably take a little longer. Personally, I prefer that they take a good look at the issue, and at the current wording, and if they do change anything, that they get it right. And if it takes a little while, the right thing to do is to let people know their questions have been received and are being considered, rather than let them hang.

[nsxguy]

 

I think they just "missed it". It happens. You're so focused on the (common) issue you forget other possibilities. Sometimes you really can't see the forest for the trees.

 

 

Yellow hazard, yellow PA, same-same.

 

Yellow PA, drop behind the PA no matter which side the ball last crossed. Same-same. Easy peasy, case closed.

 

I think they simply just didn't connect the dots between all the new terms,

 

 

PA, RA, RP, EP. They don't even mention "point last crossed". It's now the "estimated point". They state X = Point that ball entered the area. In the text they use the term "estimated point" instead of PLC. Then they say the RP may be anywhere behind the EP.

 

All good,,,,,,,,,,,, so long as the EP isn't on the green side of the yellow PA.

 

Anyway, that's my theory. :dntknw:

 

I do not think it is that shocking guys. The thing that threw them off was establishing a relief area as defined by the new rules. The old rule, of course was to drop a ball on the line keeping the spot last crossed and the pin. We all know that, You would drop on that line and the ball had to come to rest within two club lengths or you needed to redrop. So in their discussions they were still thinking about the line going back nut now you only have a one clublength area to drop in. It is easy to get so myopic on the issue that you fail to see the big picture.

 

Since everyone says they saw this issue "right away" why did no one ask the USGA when the new suggested rules changes were posted for discussion? Was this different from the suggested rule change?

 

 

That's a good question. For me personally, when the new rules were first introduced I gave them a quick glance but pretty much took the approach that I would wait until it was closer to 2019 before really taking the time to learn them in depth. Then once I finally did take a more dedicated look (just a few weeks ago) I realized the issue at hand. So I noticed it "right away" in relation to when I first started really learning the new rule. Not "right away" in relation to when the new rule was first announced.

 

How did the issue go so long with nobody else (or not enough people or the "right" people) taking notice? No idea. Perhaps it was one of those not being able to see the forest for the trees sort of things.

 

Yup, as I mentioned earlier.

 

And somebody had to be first - guess it was you this time.

 

 

To clarify. Shocking more so that they respond to an email finally without an answer. Or hint that they have an answer and will release ASAP. Was kind of a " oh crap. Let me get back to you on that " answer.

That doesn't surprise me at all. I'd bet that rule-related inquiries are up by fact of 10, or maybe 100, as compared with the same time frame last year. I'd also bet that they didn't increase staffing by a factor of 10, so responses will probably take a little longer. Personally, I prefer that they take a good look at the issue, and at the current wording, and if they do change anything, that they get it right. And if it takes a little while, the right thing to do is to let people know their questions have been received and are being considered, rather than let them hang.

 

Yeah, I'm not surprised either, Assuming "we" are all correct and this WAS missed they're certainly not going to rule on it right away.

 

As Sawgrass mentioned a while back they'll take a little time to make sure they get the interpretation/rule change/whatever right this time. They can't screw it up a 2nd time.

 

I envision a memo having gone out to all rules people not to answer anything on "yellow penalty area drop on green side of PA" questions until further notice/clarification".

[Newby]

I think my copy of the original released proposals is dated April '18. IMO no one took it seriously enough to really get to grips with the document.

Surprisingly, there are a lot of senior referees now expressing criticism of the RBs (not especially on this board) when they also missed their opportunity to respond to the invitation to comment.

Happily a 2020 update could be an opportunity to get onto the 2/4 year cycle.

[Sawgrass]

I think it's easy to criticize the RBs for a few quirks, but the job they embraced was truly massive. I'm a bit surprised that things seem to fit together so well. It always impressed me that the various rules worked so well together and had such clearly defined parallel penalties for related issues in separate rules. That, so far, still seems to work.

 

Let's acknowledge that in virtually every single year in memory a new decision or local rule was put out there to address a newly-percieved issue. And that was for existing, well-vetted rules. Should we really be surprised that quirks exist in a whole new set?

[sui generis]

I think my copy of the original released proposals is dated April '18. IMO no one took it seriously enough to really get to grips with the document.

Surprisingly, there are a lot of senior referees now expressing criticism of the RBs (not especially on this board) when they also missed their opportunity to respond to the invitation to comment.

Happily a 2020 update could be an opportunity to get onto the 2/4 year cycle.

 

My acquaintance on the Rules Committee suggested 2022, but didn't rule out something before that.

[SNIPERBBB]

Only if you've never been official in any sport, especially those sports that have yearly or biannual rules revisions. Any of my NFHS basketball officiating brethen knows how this happens everytime a major rule change comes about. They just fixed one rule issue that we've been complaining about as nonsensical for years. And still hasn't coddified a lot of issues that only exist as points of emphasis many people that are officiating now have never seen!

[davep043]

I think it's easy to criticize the RBs for a few quirks, but the job they embraced was truly massive. I'm a bit surprised that things seem to fit together so well. It always impressed me that the various rules worked so well together and had such clearly defined parallel penalties for related issues in separate rules. That, so far, still seems to work.

 

Let's acknowledge that in virtually every single year in memory a new decision or local rule was put out there to address a newly-percieved issue. And that was for existing, well-vetted rules. Should we really be surprised that quirks exist in a whole new set?

I think that there's a significant population of people who already dislike the USGA and/or R&A for any number of other reasons. No need to discuss those reasons, or their validity, but that animus exists. I see most of the condemnation of the Ruling Bodies for these rules glitches as coming from that group of people.

[antip]

Absolutely no criticism from me about the role of RBs in this process or suggestions some things could or should have been done better. I think the targets of the exercise could have been even more focused on simplicity (which would also involve greater risks) but that is a different debate. The new framework has significantly greater coherence and that is an achievement worth celebrating. And right now, I'm only interested in looking forward and putting it into effect.

 

Should we be surprised that some unintended wrinkles will emerge? IMO, not at all. This new framework is going to get the most rigorous workout world wide by millions of folk getting out there and playing and that will throw up new issues. This will exercise the new framework in a way not possible by even the smartest team writing stuff in front of a computer. And discussion forums like this have also got a valuable role to play, both in smoking out the occasional glitch and in broadening the understanding.

 

My biggest hope now is RBs embrace some mechanism that allows the broadest possible sharing of the most valuable of the questions they are currently receiving and the answers they are providing. Supplying such answers to only the questioner seems to me to be such an incredible waste of the effort put in by the questioner and the responder. I think some form of searchable Q/A database would be incredibly valuable.

[Augster]

The problem with this was that it was a “last second” change and wasn’t thought out correctly.

 

In everything I read and saw, up until 4/18 leaked finals, they said, basically “everything will stay the same” insofaras Penalty Area drops. Except no opposite margin relief for red. Meaning they were still planning on having us drop “behind” yellow hazards.

 

When they came out with their original “32 changes” or whatnot, I agreed with every one of them making golf simpler. Then they got feedback and started changing stuff. The changes were implemented, really, without feedback in a short amount of time. 20”/40”/80” became 1 and two clublengths. Drop any height as long as it stays in the relief area became knee height only. Etc. Etc.

 

When “drop behind the hazard” became, “you can drop within 1CL on either side of the RP line”, in their haste they forgot to say the RP can’t be in the same hazard.

 

That’s how I see the evolution of the changes anyway.

 

They should have stuck with their original intent to make all penalty areas red. To hell with “how the hole was designed to play” I say. If I clear the PA and it rolls back in, I should be dropping on that side. I’ve already physically hit it past the PA, why should I have to do it again just because the architect designed a huge slope or the superintendent decided to mow that slope short.

 

Make them all red, I say, and bring back opposite margin relief!

[Sawgrass]

I've already physically hit it past the PA, why should I have to do it again just because the architect designed a huge slope or the superintendent decided to mow that slope short.

 

 

 

Because it's heartbreaking, and in its own way, adds to the fun.

[Newby]

I've already physically hit it past the PA, why should I have to do it again just because the architect designed a huge slope or the superintendent decided to mow that slope short.

 

 

 

Because it's heartbreaking, and in its own way, adds to the fun.

And will encourage you to learn how to put topspin on the ball rather than backspin

[DaveLeeNC]

I've already physically hit it past the PA, why should I have to do it again just because the architect designed a huge slope or the superintendent decided to mow that slope short.

 

 

 

Because it's heartbreaking, and in its own way, adds to the fun.

 

There are a couple of greens at courses that I play with water VERY tight to the green and they are (legitimately) marked as Red PA's. More than once I have ended in the water (after having crossed that side of the PA) and after a stroke and drop had a almost trivial up/down for a bogey (penalty drop leaves only a yard or two of closely mowed fringe between me and the hole) and a shot at a par.

 

I do recall thinking something like "not much of a penalty for a big mistake". But not exactly disappointing. Maybe disappointing had it been my opponent.

 

dave

[bladehunter]

The problem with this was that it was a “last second” change and wasn’t thought out correctly.

 

In everything I read and saw, up until 4/18 leaked finals, they said, basically “everything will stay the same” insofaras Penalty Area drops. Except no opposite margin relief for red. Meaning they were still planning on having us drop “behind” yellow hazards.

 

When they came out with their original “32 changes” or whatnot, I agreed with every one of them making golf simpler. Then they got feedback and started changing stuff. The changes were implemented, really, without feedback in a short amount of time. 20”/40”/80” became 1 and two clublengths. Drop any height as long as it stays in the relief area became knee height only. Etc. Etc.

 

When “drop behind the hazard” became, “you can drop within 1CL on either side of the RP line”, in their haste they forgot to say the RP can’t be in the same hazard.

 

That’s how I see the evolution of the changes anyway.

 

They should have stuck with their original intent to make all penalty areas red. To hell with “how the hole was designed to play” I say. If I clear the PA and it rolls back in, I should be dropping on that side. I’ve already physically hit it past the PA, why should I have to do it again just because the architect designed a huge slope or the superintendent decided to mow that slope short.

 

Make them all red, I say, and bring back opposite margin relief!

 

I’m glad someone else saw it this way too. The rules as they changed aren’t the same as what I recalll when asked for feedback. All these guys saying “ you had your chance now shut up “ aren’t remembering how it actually came to be.

[Newby]

I'm not sure what wording you mean but this is taken from the original proposal - Proof Copy - New Rules of Golf for 2019

 

(3) Lateral Relief (Only for Red Penalty Area). When the ball last crossed the edge of a red penalty area, the player may drop the original ball or another ball in this lateral relief area (see Rule 14.3):

• Reference Point: The estimated point where the original ball last crossed the edge of the red penalty area.

• Size of Relief Area Measured from Reference Point: Two club-lengths, but with these limits:

• Limits on Location of Relief Area:

 Must not be nearer the hole than the reference point, and

 May be in any area on the course except the same penalty area, but

 If more than one area of the course is located within two club-lengths of the reference point, the ball must come to rest in the relief area in the same area of the course that the ball first touched when dropped in the relief area.

See Committee Procedures, Section __ (the Committee may adopt a Local Rule allowing lateral relief on the opposite side of a red penalty area at an equal distance from the hole).

[Mr. Bean]

Newby, that was about red PA. This thread is about yellow PA.

[Sawgrass]

Newby, that was about red PA. This thread is about yellow PA.

The reference “Only for red penalty area” confirms that yellow penalty areas also were anticipated, and had different parameters.

[Newby]

Newby, that was about red PA. This thread is about yellow PA.

In addition to Sawgrass's comment, the same rule included clauses (1) and (2) which obvious related to any colour.

 

(1) Stroke-and-Distance Relief.

(2) Back-On-the-Line Relief.

 

And further, the Definition specifically included both red and yellow.

 

• Yellow penalty areas (marked with yellow lines or yellow stakes) give the player two relief options (Rules 17.1d(1) and (2)).

• Red penalty areas (marked with red lines or red stakes) give the player an extra lateral relief option (Rule 17.1d(3)), in addition to the two relief options available for yellow penalty areas.

[Mr. Bean]

I am afraid I have lost the idea of these past few posts. How does it help us to understand whether the reference point should or should not be in the same YELLOW Penalty Area if and as we know the Rules differentiate red and yellow PA's ??

[Sawgrass]

I am afraid I have lost the idea of these past few posts. How does it help us to understand whether the reference point should or should not be in the same YELLOW Penalty Area if and as we know the Rules differentiate red and yellow PA's ??

In #108, Augster said, "They should have stuck with their original intent to make all penalty areas red."

 

I didn't remember the evolution that way, and I believe that Newby confirmed that for us.

[Mr. Bean]

I am afraid I have lost the idea of these past few posts. How does it help us to understand whether the reference point should or should not be in the same YELLOW Penalty Area if and as we know the Rules differentiate red and yellow PA's ??

In #108, Augster said, "They should have stuck with their original intent to make all penalty areas red."

 

I didn't remember the evolution that way, and I believe that Newby confirmed that for us.

 

I have no written proof but that has been a proposal at some point. Maybe it remained as one instead of having been written in a form a 'official' proposal, do not know.

[Augster]

From this:

 

“Individual Committees would remain free to choose what to mark as a penalty area (and so for example could decide only to mark traditional water hazards) and when to mark a penalty area as yellow (such as to preserve the challenge of playing a particular hole).”

 

“.....and when to mark a penalty area as yellow”

 

 

All PA’s were to be marked RED. The EXCEPTION was a committee could mark an area yellow to “preserve the challenge”.

 

But if you walked onto a course that had no markings, every PA was to be red. And still is I believe. Though that may have changed in their haste.