2019 Rules - YELLOW Penalty Areas

[rogolf]

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.

And I agree with David.

[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.

And I agree with David.

 

Well, you'll have to as he decides!

[rogolf]

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.

And I agree with David.

 

Well, you'll have to as he decides!

Just a point - he doesn't "decide"; he represents the Committees' decisions.

[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.

And I agree with David.

 

Well, you'll have to as he decides!

Just a point - he doesn't "decide"; he represents the Committees' decisions.

 

That is correct. In addition to that he is one of those who decide...

 

Nevertheless, the ruling in this infinitesimally probable situation is clear even though the text in the Rules is not equally clear. I think we can all live with that.

[antip]

Nevertheless, the ruling in this infinitesimally probable situation is clear even though the text in the Rules is not equally clear. I think we can all live with that.

The rest of us already could. :)

[nsxguy]

Here we GO,,,,,,,,

 

Rory just hit over a yellow PA and it went in sideways. Let's see where the drop is.

[nsxguy]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

[Halebopp]

I tuned in to watch golf on TV for probably the third time this year and straight off the bat cart path situations with Dustin and Rory and the yellow PA for Rory. It's a shame he went to the DZ. It would've been a treat to watch things unfold on TV. :)

[Mr. Bean]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

[Sawgrass]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

I find it odd that they managed to publish a clarification on a caddie standing behind a player as he takes his stance, but didn’t issue one on the yellow penalty area even though we know they are aware of it, and even though you’ve been told it was resolved. Theory?

[Mr. Bean]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

I find it odd that they managed to publish a clarification on a caddie standing behind a player as he takes his stance, but didn’t issue one on the yellow penalty area even though we know they are aware of it, and even though you’ve been told it was resolved. Theory?

 

Slowly rotating machine..?

 

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

[nsxguy]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

I find it odd that they managed to publish a clarification on a caddie standing behind a player as he takes his stance, but didn’t issue one on the yellow penalty area even though we know they are aware of it, and even though you’ve been told it was resolved. Theory?

 

Slowly rotating machine..?

 

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

 

Probably this. Squeaky wheel and all. Today was the first time I saw the situation arise and Rory went right to the drop area presumably not even aware of the rule anomaly. After all look how long it took the guyz here to realize it was a problem.

[Sawgrass]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

I find it odd that they managed to publish a clarification on a caddie standing behind a player as he takes his stance, but didn’t issue one on the yellow penalty area even though we know they are aware of it, and even though you’ve been told it was resolved. Theory?

 

Slowly rotating machine..?

 

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

 

Probably this. Squeaky wheel and all. Today was the first time I saw the situation arise and Rory went right to the drop area presumably not even aware of the rule anomaly. After all look how long it took the guyz here to realize it was a problem.

Do you know how one might search to see a video?

[rogolf]

It's interesting that nearly all the water at the WGC Mexico was marked as yellow penalty areas. From viewing on TV, I would have marked some of them red, eg, no. 17. I wonder what happened to "predominantly red"?

[nsxguy]

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

 

Probably this. Squeaky wheel and all. Today was the first time I saw the situation arise and Rory went right to the drop area presumably not even aware of the rule anomaly. After all look how long it took the guyz here to realize it was a problem.

Do you know how one might search to see a video?

 

I saw it live, was ready to post about it here and Rory had already hit from the drop area.

 

It was the 6th hole, roughly as below. As you can see, from the entry point, if used as the reference point there is some land area further away from the pin as the water in on a diagonal.

 

 

Fat fingers - "AND goes left"

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

 

Probably this. Squeaky wheel and all. Today was the first time I saw the situation arise and Rory went right to the drop area presumably not even aware of the rule anomaly. After all look how long it took the guyz here to realize it was a problem.

Do you know how one might search to see a video?

 

I saw it live, was ready to post about it here and Rory had already hit from the drop area.

 

It was the 6th hole, roughly as below. As you can see, from the entry point, if used as the reference point there is some land area further away from the pin as the water in on a diagonal.

 

 

Fat fingers - "AND goes left"

 

 

Thank you.

[Newby]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

 

What is the loophole? What is the patch?

[Mr. Bean]

Situation just now happened with Rory.

 

Nothing (really) to see here. He hit from the designated drop area. :dntknw:

 

I'm betting "no one" knows this loophole even existed and just automatically go behind the PA.

 

That loophole has already been patched (info directly from R&A). Unfortunately we are still waiting for the RBs to release a clarification on that particular issue.

 

What is the loophole? What is the patch?

 

Current wording of the Rules allow the Reference Point to be in the same yellow PA where the ball went in a case where ball backs up into the PA having already crossed the line on the green side (eg. Augusta #12). Thus the Rule allows you to drop on the green side provided part of the RA is outside the PA.

 

This question has been presented to R&A by our national federation and the answer was that in case of a yellow PA nothing has changed but a ball must always be dropped behind the PA, just as it was last year. A Clarification is to be released, hopefully pretty soon as this response from R&A is more than one month old.

[Newby]

Thanks

[Sawgrass]

Or maybe they tend to act quicker on issues that come up in high level competitions and end up on the web pages.

 

P.S. I find it odd RBs did not think of all these things through before printing them in a book...

 

Probably this. Squeaky wheel and all. Today was the first time I saw the situation arise and Rory went right to the drop area presumably not even aware of the rule anomaly. After all look how long it took the guyz here to realize it was a problem.

Do you know how one might search to see a video?

 

I saw it live, was ready to post about it here and Rory had already hit from the drop area.

 

It was the 6th hole, roughly as below. As you can see, from the entry point, if used as the reference point there is some land area further away from the pin as the water in on a diagonal.

 

 

Fat fingers - "AND goes left"

 

 

Thank you.

As I think about this arrangement, with the severe slope right where the green-side relief area would be, and with Fowler being a right-handed player, a drop on the green side would have been taking a big chance. Could have forced him to stand in the water!

 

An interesting twist on that is that he could have dropped "back on the line" once, had the ball bounce into the PA, then chosen a different reference point for his second back on the line drop, perhaps chickening out and dropping on the tee side of the PA this second time.

[nsxguy]

Do you know how one might search to see a video?

 

I saw it live, was ready to post about it here and Rory had already hit from the drop area.

 

It was the 6th hole, roughly as below. As you can see, from the entry point, if used as the reference point there is some land area further away from the pin as the water in on a diagonal.

 

 

Fat fingers - "AND goes left"

 

 

Thank you.

As I think about this arrangement, with the severe slope right where the green-side relief area would be, and with Fowler being a right-handed player, a drop on the green side would have been taking a big chance. Could have forced him to stand in the water!

 

An interesting twist on that is that he could have dropped "back on the line" once, had the ball bounce into the PA, then chosen a different reference point for his second back on the line drop, perhaps chickening out and dropping on the tee side of the PA this second time.

 

Yes, it appears as though standing in the water would've been a possibility. As I mentioned I just saw it happen and immediately thought about this thread/rule.

[nsxguy]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

[davep043]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

not that it matters, I wonder if the official specifically mentioned this as an option, or if Vijay actually knows the rules.

[Mr. Bean]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!!

 

As there is no newly published text dictating otherwise the current text in the Book is valid.

 

Or did you expect something else?

[rogolf]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

not that it matters, I wonder if the official specifically mentioned this as an option, or if Vijay actually knows the rules.

A smart player always asks the referee, "What are my options here"?

This referee (Mark Dusbabek) knows the options (as do all PGATour referees).

[LeoLeo99]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

 

I wanted to ask about that drop. I told my wife I thought it was an illegal drop. Obviously, the official knows the rules better than me. Why was VJ allowed a drop in front of the yellow line? I thought you could only do that for red stakes.

[Mr. Bean]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!!

 

I wanted to ask about that drop. I told my wife I thought it was an illegal drop. Obviously, the official knows the rules better than me. Why was VJ allowed a drop in front of the yellow line? I thought you could only do that for red stakes.

 

Rule 17.1d(2)

[nsxguy]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

 

I wanted to ask about that drop. I told my wife I thought it was an illegal drop. Obviously, the official knows the rules better than me. Why was VJ allowed a drop in front of the yellow line? I thought you could only do that for red stakes.

 

Read the first post on the thread,,,,,,,,,,

[DaveLeeNC]

I only saw one brief view of the situation from behind where Vijay's ball last crossed the yellow line (looking toward the pin), but it looked to me that, given the lines of the penalty area, Vijay might well have had a drop on that side of the penalty area under the old rules. But I wasn't paying really close attention so maybe not. Did anyone else notice that?

 

dave

[LeoLeo99]

Here we go again only THIS time the official's giving Vijay a drop without going back BEHIND the yellow PA.

 

All the Rulies are right and the official KNOWS the Rule !!!

 

Way to go GUYS !!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

 

I wanted to ask about that drop. I told my wife I thought it was an illegal drop. Obviously, the official knows the rules better than me. Why was VJ allowed a drop in front of the yellow line? I thought you could only do that for red stakes.

 

Read the first post on the thread,,,,,,,,,,

 

Thanks. Was that drop only allowed because the ball cleared the yellow line and then rolled back in to the penalty area?