2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[Mr. Bean]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

 

If the Reference Point is in the PA the Relief Area may or may not be partially outside that PA. However, this is by far not always the case. Thus it is NOT always possible to drop on the green side.

 

That was my point, and I doubt you need to continue this discussion as it will be null and void in the near future anyway.

[Newby]

There is no lateral relief for a yellow penalty area, but BOL relief could result in something that might appear similar, but is not the same.

I've said before, two things not the same are different; same applies here.

Couldn't agree more. If contributors to a Rules discussion use terms defined under the Rules in a way that is not consistent with that definition we will be spinning our wheels endlessly.

And (or "but"?) we all need to be open to seeing and reacting to how normal English language definitions and usage might confuse things for those less steeped in rules language.

 

The truth needs to come out, visible to all!

Not to threadjack but I agree wholeheartedly with this. I have commented before how the new rules are written better for the everyday avid golfer. Less legalese if you will. But as our discussions have pointed out even now there are instances where the intent seems to be clear to those of you steeped in the rules but for the layman we can only go by what is actually written and the normal interpretation of such.

 

One other thing that would be helpful to newcomers (who should be encouraged to participate) is a "sticky" thread with acronyms that will not be familiar to newcomers. A few that come to mind

• RO - Rules Official
  
• PA - Penalty Area
  
• BOL - Back of Line
  
• CL - Club Length
  
• BOTL - Back of The Line (I think)
  
• S&D - Stroke and Distance
  

And I am sure there are many more that won't be obvious to someone 'off the street'.

 

Is there a way to do that where a typical thread will just drift down into obscurity.

 

dave

 

Back on the Line - not of

But the favoured mnemonic seems to be BOL not BOTL

[nsxguy]

First of all I can find nothing in the "Definitions" that defines the term "lateral relief". If you can, please point it out. TIA

 

Therefore the words must be taken literally as in "relief to the SIDE". Further, I didn't see anything that says "no lateral relief from a yellow PA" as you are suggesting/opining. I DO see, in 17.1d(3) "(3) Lateral Relief (Only for Red Penalty Area)" so I can only deduce you're hanging your hat on that ONE LINE. Yes, that line is very clear!

 

The picture in Post 1 of this thread shows lateral relief or, if you prefer, relief to the side, from a Yellow PA that "everybody" here has agreed IS permitted by the Rules as written.

 

I previously provided a link where you said "Think of no. 12 at Augusta, marked yellow. If the ball last crosses the edge of the penalty area on the green side and the reference point can be immediately behind that point (on the back-on-the-line), there could well be some of the one club-length relief area outside the penalty area and the player could drop on the green side of the penalty area."

 

In a more recent post of yours (above) you said "Imo, the Rules do not permit lateral relief for a yellow penalty area regardless of where the ball crossed the edge of the penalty area."

 

So which is it ? As the Rules stand now, i.e. BEFORE the clarification/change posted by Mr Bean in Post 162, do you disagree with the permissible drop in the very first post ? Or not ?

 

Thanks

 

Rule 17.1d is very clear that there are only two relief procedures permitted for yellow penalty areas - stroke and distance and back-on-the-line.

Rule 17.1d(3) is very clear that "lateral relief" is only applicable to a red penalty area. "Lateral relief" is not part of BOL relief (Rule 17.1d(2).

 

I think that I've been very consistent in saying that BOL relief may result in the possibility of dropping on the green side of a yellow penalty area when the ball has crossed the yellow penalty area and rolled back into it. I don't believe that I've called this "lateral relief" (which would be incorrect) because "lateral relief" is restricted to red penalty areas by the Rules.

 

Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1, it may be possible that, with the Rules as written, there is a relief area on the greenside of that yellow penalty area based on BOL relief. But, because the penalty area is marked yellow, there is no "lateral relief".

 

As someone said earlier, using the correct terminology when discussing Rules is important for everyone.

 

Forgetting for the moment that there is NO definition of "lateral relief" and that the term lateral relief MEANS relife to the side, is that a "Yes", or a "No" ?

 

I don't know what you mean by "Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1" - what "specifics" do you not see and need to know to make a decision ?

[Sawgrass]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

This bolded part above regarding the old (as well as the new) rules is completely wrong. If your ball intrudes on the plane extending up from a penalty area, even if most of it is out, it's considered "in." Regarding OB, the entire ball must be OB to suffer that fate.

[nsxguy]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

This bolded part above regarding the old (as well as the new) rules is completely wrong. If your ball intrudes on the plane extending up from a penalty area, even if most of it is out, it's considered "in." Regarding OB, the entire ball must be OB to suffer that fate.

 

At least I got those 2 right

 

[cxx]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

This bolded part above regarding the old (as well as the new) rules is completely wrong. If your ball intrudes on the plane extending up from a penalty area, even if most of it is out, it's considered "in." Regarding OB, the entire ball must be OB to suffer that fate.

Oops, got it backwards.

[bladehunter]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

This bolded part above regarding the old (as well as the new) rules is completely wrong. If your ball intrudes on the plane extending up from a penalty area, even if most of it is out, it's considered "in." Regarding OB, the entire ball must be OB to suffer that fate.

 

Hmm. Threadjack warning. Does that include touching a stake or boundary fence post ? Provided some of the ball is inbounds ?

[rogolf]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

 

Your understanding is incorrect, both the the old Rules and the 2019 Rules. If a ball touches a penalty area, it is in the penalty area. For out of bounds, if part of the ball touches the course, it is in bounds - to be out of bounds, all of the ball must be out of bounds.

 

Edit: see others have posted correction before mine.

[rogolf]

First of all I can find nothing in the "Definitions" that defines the term "lateral relief". If you can, please point it out. TIA

 

Therefore the words must be taken literally as in "relief to the SIDE". Further, I didn't see anything that says "no lateral relief from a yellow PA" as you are suggesting/opining. I DO see, in 17.1d(3) "(3) Lateral Relief (Only for Red Penalty Area)" so I can only deduce you're hanging your hat on that ONE LINE. Yes, that line is very clear!

 

The picture in Post 1 of this thread shows lateral relief or, if you prefer, relief to the side, from a Yellow PA that "everybody" here has agreed IS permitted by the Rules as written.

 

I previously provided a link where you said "Think of no. 12 at Augusta, marked yellow. If the ball last crosses the edge of the penalty area on the green side and the reference point can be immediately behind that point (on the back-on-the-line), there could well be some of the one club-length relief area outside the penalty area and the player could drop on the green side of the penalty area."

 

In a more recent post of yours (above) you said "Imo, the Rules do not permit lateral relief for a yellow penalty area regardless of where the ball crossed the edge of the penalty area."

 

So which is it ? As the Rules stand now, i.e. BEFORE the clarification/change posted by Mr Bean in Post 162, do you disagree with the permissible drop in the very first post ? Or not ?

 

Thanks

 

Rule 17.1d is very clear that there are only two relief procedures permitted for yellow penalty areas - stroke and distance and back-on-the-line.

Rule 17.1d(3) is very clear that "lateral relief" is only applicable to a red penalty area. "Lateral relief" is not part of BOL relief (Rule 17.1d(2).

 

I think that I've been very consistent in saying that BOL relief may result in the possibility of dropping on the green side of a yellow penalty area when the ball has crossed the yellow penalty area and rolled back into it. I don't believe that I've called this "lateral relief" (which would be incorrect) because "lateral relief" is restricted to red penalty areas by the Rules.

 

Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1, it may be possible that, with the Rules as written, there is a relief area on the greenside of that yellow penalty area based on BOL relief. But, because the penalty area is marked yellow, there is no "lateral relief".

 

As someone said earlier, using the correct terminology when discussing Rules is important for everyone.

 

Forgetting for the moment that there is NO definition of "lateral relief" and that the term lateral relief MEANS relife to the side, is that a "Yes", or a "No" ?

 

I don't know what you mean by "Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1" - what "specifics" do you not see and need to know to make a decision ?

As I've said before (and will again, as necessary), there is no lateral relief (Rules term in Rules 17 and 19) for back on the line relief. Back on the line relief does provide for a relief area measured from the reference point, one club-length to each side, but that is not "lateral relief".

By specifics, I mean precisely where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area, the hole location and the chosen reference point. I've said previously that, depending on those specifics, part of the relief area for back on the line relief could be outside the penalty area, and the player would be permitted to drop in that portion of the relief area.

I'm not sure what you are pursing? Just admit that there is no lateral relief, as in the Rules, when taking back on the line relief. Two things not the same are different.

[Sawgrass]

The way the yellow PA rule is written, there will always be relief on the green side PA border when the ball crosses in from that side. The point where the ball crossed into the PA will always be "no closer to the hole".

 

No, you are in the wrong, my friend. But fortunately it does not matter for long.

 

 

Why? Are you saying that the point of entry is in the PA? I seem to recall that under the old rules you were in a water hazard when the whole ball was in the hazard. Touching the line didn't put you in. It was one of the differences between hazards and the out of bounds, where if you touched the boarder you were out. That would seem to me to carry forward to the new rules on penalty areas. Then again, I'm not sure where in the rules that distinction was made.

This bolded part above regarding the old (as well as the new) rules is completely wrong. If your ball intrudes on the plane extending up from a penalty area, even if most of it is out, it's considered "in." Regarding OB, the entire ball must be OB to suffer that fate.

 

Hmm. Threadjack warning. Does that include touching a stake or boundary fence post ? Provided some of the ball is inbounds ?

According to 17.1, a ball is in a penalty area when it touches anything in the penalty area. So assuming that a stake is completely vertical, a ball touching it would be in the PA. A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

[nsxguy]

First of all I can find nothing in the "Definitions" that defines the term "lateral relief". If you can, please point it out. TIA

 

Therefore the words must be taken literally as in "relief to the SIDE". Further, I didn't see anything that says "no lateral relief from a yellow PA" as you are suggesting/opining. I DO see, in 17.1d(3) "(3) Lateral Relief (Only for Red Penalty Area)" so I can only deduce you're hanging your hat on that ONE LINE. Yes, that line is very clear!

 

The picture in Post 1 of this thread shows lateral relief or, if you prefer, relief to the side, from a Yellow PA that "everybody" here has agreed IS permitted by the Rules as written.

 

I previously provided a link where you said "Think of no. 12 at Augusta, marked yellow. If the ball last crosses the edge of the penalty area on the green side and the reference point can be immediately behind that point (on the back-on-the-line), there could well be some of the one club-length relief area outside the penalty area and the player could drop on the green side of the penalty area."

 

In a more recent post of yours (above) you said "Imo, the Rules do not permit lateral relief for a yellow penalty area regardless of where the ball crossed the edge of the penalty area."

 

So which is it ? As the Rules stand now, i.e. BEFORE the clarification/change posted by Mr Bean in Post 162, do you disagree with the permissible drop in the very first post ? Or not ?

 

Thanks

 

Rule 17.1d is very clear that there are only two relief procedures permitted for yellow penalty areas - stroke and distance and back-on-the-line.

Rule 17.1d(3) is very clear that "lateral relief" is only applicable to a red penalty area. "Lateral relief" is not part of BOL relief (Rule 17.1d(2).

 

I think that I've been very consistent in saying that BOL relief may result in the possibility of dropping on the green side of a yellow penalty area when the ball has crossed the yellow penalty area and rolled back into it. I don't believe that I've called this "lateral relief" (which would be incorrect) because "lateral relief" is restricted to red penalty areas by the Rules.

 

Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1, it may be possible that, with the Rules as written, there is a relief area on the greenside of that yellow penalty area based on BOL relief. But, because the penalty area is marked yellow, there is no "lateral relief".

 

As someone said earlier, using the correct terminology when discussing Rules is important for everyone.

 

Forgetting for the moment that there is NO definition of "lateral relief" and that the term lateral relief MEANS relife to the side, is that a "Yes", or a "No" ?

 

I don't know what you mean by "Without seeing the specifics in the diagram in post #1" - what "specifics" do you not see and need to know to make a decision ?

As I've said before (and will again, as necessary), there is no lateral relief (Rules term in Rules 17 and 19) for back on the line relief. Back on the line relief does provide for a relief area measured from the reference point, one club-length to each side, but that is not "lateral relief".

By specifics, I mean precisely where the ball last crossed the edge of the penalty area, the hole location and the chosen reference point. I've said previously that, depending on those specifics, part of the relief area for back on the line relief could be outside the penalty area, and the player would be permitted to drop in that portion of the relief area.

I'm not sure what you are pursing? Just admit that there is no lateral relief, as in the Rules, when taking back on the line relief. Two things not the same are different.

 

There is nothing for me to admit. You can't show me a definition of lateral relief. You "rulies" have always been quite specific on the point that words mean what they mean - apparently unless you don't want them to.

 

You know, or should know, exactly what I am pursuing. I am pursuing your judgement in THAT situation

 

The specifics you mention are in the mock up in Post 1. The ball crossed the green side margin of the yellow PA and landed OUTSIDE the PA and came back in. There is immediate relief laterally to the side. Can he drop there ?

 

But all you're willing to offer is that there may be a circumstance where it is possible to drop on the green side of the yellow PA and since you are more willing to dance all around and not give a judgement I guess I'll just settle for that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, since that IS the point of the discrepancy in the first place.

 

Thanks. :hi:

[rogolf]

Hmmm. I'd suggest that it's you that's dancing around, unwilling to admit that both Rules 17 and 19 clearly describe what is "lateral relief" and that it is distinct from back-on-the-line relief.

[Mr. Bean]

A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

 

This is my favourite part :busted_cop:

 

Even if all of the ball is Out of Bounds that ball is in bounds if it touches but does not break the imaginary wall of the course margin (or is it edge today?). I had a discussion with David Rickman on this issue three years ago. He admitted that the wording in the Rules is not precise enough but that is how it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

I wonder why they did not change the wording as they has all the time in the world..?

[Mr. Bean]

There is nothing for me to admit. You can't show me a definition of lateral relief.

 

I am starting to wonder if you are trolling or is there another explanation, which surely is much less flattering from your point of view...

 

I mean, you have been told a multitude of times that the phrase 'lateral relief' only exists in Rule 17 and there in the section of Red Penalty Areas. Somehow you don't seem to accept that as an answer.

[Sawgrass]

A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

 

This is my favourite part :busted_cop:

 

Even if all of the ball is Out of Bounds that ball is in bounds if it touches but does not break the imaginary wall of the course margin (or is it edge today?). I had a discussion with David Rickman on this issue three years ago. He admitted that the wording in the Rules is not precise enough but that is how it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

I wonder why they did not change the wording as they has all the time in the world..?

Perhaps odder still, they removed the sentence "A ball is in a water hazard when it lies in or any part of it touches the water hazard." Now you have to go to R 17.1a to find that bit.

 

I do note though that in 18.2a (2) I think you've got the "touching the stake is in bounds" reference you're looking for in the second bullet.

[nsxguy]

There is nothing for me to admit. You can't show me a definition of lateral relief.

 

I am starting to wonder if you are trolling or is there another explanation, which surely is much less flattering from your point of view...

 

I mean, you have been told a multitude of times that the phrase 'lateral relief' only exists in Rule 17 and there in the section of Red Penalty Areas. Somehow you don't seem to accept that as an answer.

 

Being a pdanet yourself I find it hard to believe you don't understand that no definition of "lateral relief" exists in the Rules and therefore the phrase simply means what it means.

 

You, and other "rulies", would, and have for any number of things, fought tooth & nail that the Rule literally means what it says (or some such). But when some "non-rulie" states such a thing he is trolling.

 

I'd say that's interesting,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it's really not.

[nsxguy]

Hmmm. I'd suggest that it's you that's dancing around, unwilling to admit that both Rules 17 and 19 clearly describe what is "lateral relief" and that it is distinct from back-on-the-line relief.

 

Now THAT is just good comedy. :good: You're right. They describe it. They don't define it. Lateral has a definition. You just don't like it.

 

At least 3 times I've asked you directly whether the drop pictured is legal or not.

 

Any answer from you ? Nah,,,,,, I need to see some specifics. And *I* am dancing around ? :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[rogolf]

Hmmm. I'd suggest that it's you that's dancing around, unwilling to admit that both Rules 17 and 19 clearly describe what is "lateral relief" and that it is distinct from back-on-the-line relief.

 

Now THAT is just good comedy. :good: You're right. They describe it. They don't define it. Lateral has a definition. You just don't like it.

 

At least 3 times I've asked you directly whether the drop pictured is legal or not.

 

Any answer from you ? Nah,,,,,, I need to see some specifics. And *I* am dancing around ? :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

Please find me a definition of "back-on-the-line relief"? Yet you seem to know what it means and how to apply it. This is the same "definition" for "lateral relief" but you seem to conveniently ignore it.

I don't give rulings without being on site and seeing/evaluating the whole situation. On websites, I give my opinions.

[nsxguy]

Hmmm. I'd suggest that it's you that's dancing around, unwilling to admit that both Rules 17 and 19 clearly describe what is "lateral relief" and that it is distinct from back-on-the-line relief.

 

Now THAT is just good comedy. :good: You're right. They describe it. They don't define it. Lateral has a definition. You just don't like it.

 

At least 3 times I've asked you directly whether the drop pictured is legal or not.

 

Any answer from you ? Nah,,,,,, I need to see some specifics. And *I* am dancing around ? :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

Please find me a definition of "back-on-the-line relief"? Yet you seem to know what it means and how to apply it. This is the same "definition" for "lateral relief" but you seem to conveniently ignore it.

I don't give rulings without being on site and seeing/evaluating the whole situation. On websites, I give my opinions.

 

And you think I dance around ?!?!?! You tricky little devil you. :taunt:

 

[antip]

A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

 

This is my favourite part :busted_cop:

 

Even if all of the ball is Out of Bounds that ball is in bounds if it touches but does not break the imaginary wall of the course margin (or is it edge today?). I had a discussion with David Rickman on this issue three years ago. He admitted that the wording in the Rules is not precise enough but that is how it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

I wonder why they did not change the wording as they has all the time in the world..?

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

[antip]

According to 17.1, a ball is in a penalty area when it touches anything in the penalty area. So assuming that a stake is completely vertical, a ball touching it would be in the PA.

Just noting that PA stakes aren't automatically in the PA unless they define the PA.

[Mr. Bean]

A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

 

This is my favourite part :busted_cop:

 

Even if all of the ball is Out of Bounds that ball is in bounds if it touches but does not break the imaginary wall of the course margin (or is it edge today?). I had a discussion with David Rickman on this issue three years ago. He admitted that the wording in the Rules is not precise enough but that is how it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

I wonder why they did not change the wording as they has all the time in the world..?

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

 

Really? Lay a golf ball on a table. Is that ball entirely above the table or is part of it inside the table?

 

The text is not more clear than before but the interpretation should be the same.

[rogolf]

A ball touching the course side of an OB stake is most certainly in bounds, as all of the ball has to be outside the inside edge of the stake for the ball to be OB.

 

This is my favourite part :busted_cop:

 

Even if all of the ball is Out of Bounds that ball is in bounds if it touches but does not break the imaginary wall of the course margin (or is it edge today?). I had a discussion with David Rickman on this issue three years ago. He admitted that the wording in the Rules is not precise enough but that is how it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

I wonder why they did not change the wording as they has all the time in the world..?

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

 

Really? Lay a golf ball on a table. Is that ball entirely above the table or is part of it inside the table?

 

The text is not more clear than before but the interpretation should be the same.

If the table represents the course, is the ball touching the course?

[Newby]

At the molecular level, isn't part of it in the course?

[antip]

At the molecular level, isn't part of it in the course?

We don't have moles on this continent.

[Newby]

At the molecular level, isn't part of it in the course?

We don't have moles on this continent.

Probably too small for you to see with the naked eye

[Mr. Bean]

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

 

Really? Lay a golf ball on a table. Is that ball entirely above the table or is part of it inside the table?

 

The text is not more clear than before but the interpretation should be the same.

If the table represents the course, is the ball touching the course?

 

Change the table into a vertical object such as a window and the ball does not touch the course nor is above the edge.

 

At the molecular level, isn't part of it in the course?

 

How would you verify that? :swoon:

[Sawgrass]

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

 

Really? Lay a golf ball on a table. Is that ball entirely above the table or is part of it inside the table?

 

The text is not more clear than before but the interpretation should be the same.

If the table represents the course, is the ball touching the course?

 

Change the table into a vertical object such as a window and the ball does not touch the course nor is above the edge.

 

 

Please clarify as to how this problem lays out. If a vertical pane of glass represents an OB line, a ball is either completely out or completely in -- depending on which side of the glass it's on. Even if it touches either side.

[rogolf]

I agree with Sawgrass that the new18.2a(2) wording does get the point across better than 2018. "A ball is out of bounds only when ALL OF IT IS OUTSIDE the boundary edge." Touching the boundary edge cannot be entirely outside the boundary edge. Not perfectly clear, but not technically deficient.

 

Really? Lay a golf ball on a table. Is that ball entirely above the table or is part of it inside the table?

 

The text is not more clear than before but the interpretation should be the same.

If the table represents the course, is the ball touching the course?

 

Change the table into a vertical object such as a window and the ball does not touch the course nor is above the edge.

 

At the molecular level, isn't part of it in the course?

 

How would you verify that? :swoon:

 

Is that window (vertical object) on the course? Is the ball touching it?

[Mr. Bean]

Oh my...

 

I have no idea how to post pictures here so I will try the last and final time to explain what and how I asked from David Rickman.

 

The Course and Out of Bounds are divided by an invisible and infinitively thin vertical wall. None of this wall is in bounds nor out of bounds as it has no thickness. The question is whether a ball touching this wall from the OB side is in bounds or out of bounds. In this question the ball is situated so that the outmost point of that ball only touches the wall but nothing on the course.

 

Now the question is whether that ball is in or out. The Rule says that a ball is OB if all of it lies OB. In this example all of the ball lies OB as no part of it is on the edge or touching anything on the course. So the ball must be OB.

 

I demonstrated this question to David Rickman by placing my laptop on a table and a bottle by it touching the edge of my laptop (here the edge of my laptop represents the Course) and asked if all of that bottle was outside the laptop.

 

David understood my point at once and said that 'yes, all of that bottle is outside the laptop'. Then he continued saying that I was correct, that is how the Rules say literally BUT the idea is that a ball touching but not breaking the imaginary wall is considered to be in bounds.

 

So there is no question whether that ball is in or out. I was merely pointing out that the RB's could have written it explicitly instead of former and unfortunately also renewed ambiguous text. Then again, it is virtually impossible to accurately determine such a situation on the course not to say this situation comes across once every 100 years, so this discussion is and always has been purely academic.