Would a local rule be justified?

[sui generis]

Designating something as GUR which is clearly "not under repair" strains the credibility of both the Committee and the Rules of Golf.

 

What needs to be said is that the wall and the area inside the wall is a No Play Zone. Free relief is afforded by R16.1b, or as an additional relief option the player may use the Dropping Zone. Some words which define the dropping zone are necessary, also 

[rogolf]

6 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Designating something as GUR which is clearly "not under repair" strains the credibility of both the Committee and the Rules of Golf.

 

What needs to be said is that the wall and the area inside the wall is a No Play Zone. Free relief is afforded by R16.1b, or as an additional relief option the player may use the Dropping Zone. Some words which define the dropping zone are necessary, also 

But what about the definition of NPZ?  It is not a separate part of the course, it must be part of one of the five the defined areas of the course and the definitions give two choices - abnormal course conditions (general area) or penalty area.

Edited February 11, 2021 by rogolf

[Sawgrass]

45 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Designating something as GUR which is clearly "not under repair" strains the credibility of both the Committee and the Rules of Golf.

Except the Rules quite clearly say otherwise.

[antip]

4 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

Except the Rules quite clearly say otherwise.

Precisely. While we all understand that Golf Rules Speak commits some crimes against plain, intuitive English, the definition is clear - Ground Under Repair is ANY PART OF THE COURSE the Committee defines to be ground under repair.

 

It doesn't need to be under repair, it doesn't even need to be ground.

 

We've tried to come up with better language previously, but flunked.

 

How about Ground Offering Local Free Relief (GOLFR)?

[Newby]

What about 'Free Relief Area'?

[sui generis]

8 hours ago, rogolf said:

But what about the definition of NPZ?  It is not a separate part of the course, it must be part of one of the five the defined areas of the course and the definitions give two choices - abnormal course conditions (general area) or penalty area.

 

They (the Committees) took a shortcut. No one wanted yet another Rule, especially a small, stand alone Rule for a NPZ. The easy way out, since the relief procedure is similar to those in R16, was to call something which was clearly not "under repair" GUR and rely on players saying, "Oh well, who cares. The relief is free." 

[antip]

23 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

They (the Committees) took a shortcut. No one wanted yet another Rule, especially a small, stand alone Rule for a NPZ. The easy way out, since the relief procedure is similar to those in R16, was to call something which was clearly not "under repair" GUR and rely on players saying, "Oh well, who cares. The relief is free." 

There's not much new about it though, it was there before as GUR compulsory relief and as ESA.

[sui generis]

4 minutes ago, antip said:

There's not much new about it though, it was there before as GUR compulsory relief and as ESA.

 

The Rules Modernization Committee had a lot on it's plate. 😉

[Colin L]

59 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

They (the Committees) took a shortcut. No one wanted yet another Rule, especially a small, stand alone Rule for a NPZ. The easy way out, since the relief procedure is similar to those in R16, was to call something which was clearly not "under repair" GUR and rely on players saying, "Oh well, who cares. The relief is free." 

A standing local rule which states how you identify GUR and how you identify a No Play Zone is all you need and, I'd have thought, will be the common way of working:

 

No Play Zones

Any area of ground under repair or penalty area marked with a No Play Zone sign.

Ground Under Repair

Any area encircled by a white line, blue stakes or blue rope.

 

With those in place, the ground staff can put in and take out GUR and NPZs as required without having to create additional LRs .

[sui generis]

Reluctant as I am to criticize without offering a solution, our GUR process offends my sense of reason. The Rules happily call things GUR which are clearly not "under repair" and conversely fail to recognize things which are "under repair" as GUR. Not even children are satisfied with, "Because, I said so."  😊

[Sawgrass]

57 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Reluctant as I am to criticize without offering a solution, our GUR process offends my sense of reason. The Rules happily call things GUR which are clearly not "under repair" and conversely fail to recognize things which are "under repair" as GUR. Not even children are satisfied with, "Because, I said so."  😊

I shudder to imagine what you think of Committees who call permanently-installed green-side fans TIOs.  I'm guessing it's not your cup of "T."

[sui generis]

5 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I shudder to imagine what you think of Committees who call permanently-installed green-side fans TIOs.  I'm guessing it's not your cup of "T."

 

I did for a short while until I spoke with a greenskeeper who told me that at many courses they take them in during the winter. 

[sui generis]

14 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I shudder to imagine what you think of Committees who call permanently-installed green-side fans TIOs.  I'm guessing it's not your cup of "T."

 

Oh, don't get me started on Integral Objects, either. CM

Edited February 11, 2021 by sui generis
rogue comma

[just_steveu]

I may be way off here, but my last working knowledge of the rules was from 2009 and I know things have changed just a little since I last played.

Something I've wondered for years... why do we need GUR, TIO, OB, penalty areas, lateral hazards, water hazards, or anything but a No Play Area (Zone), a Penalty Area, and a drop zone?

 

Simple - Either you are on the course in play or in an area that you are not permitted to play a shot for whatever reason.

The only difference between npz or penalty area should be whether you get mandatory free rellief or get mandatory penalty relief. Tee it up again, drop at point of nearest relief, or drop in mandatory drop zone which ever option applies to the situation.

 

Like I said, if I'm out in left field let me know.

 

As for the original question... I say just lock the dang doors and paint a penalty area line around it with a designated drop zone.

 

[Sawgrass]

8 hours ago, just_steveu said:

 

Something I've wondered for years... why do we need GUR, TIO, OB, penalty areas, lateral hazards, water hazards, or anything but a No Play Area (Zone), a Penalty Area, and a drop zone?

 

 

 

Of course we don't "need" most of these things, but many make good sense and make for a better game.

 

You will be happy to know we no longer have "lateral hazards" or "water hazards". 

 

The pro tours play would be just plain dumb without TIOs.  I don't want a player confounded by some bleacher erected 5 yards from the green.  OB helps protect players on adjoining holes, and neighbors/club members in adjoining areas.  GUR is very useful to even things out in odd situations too (as are abnormal course conditions) but I'm guessing that you don't agree with all that.  All this leads to having to learn the rules, and to playing a better game.

[just_steveu]

Admittedly I need to read up on the changes since 2009 - I was the rules guy for my league until I stopped playing regularly when I lost my job in 2009.

 

Not a matter of whether I agree or not, its their rules I just play by them. 

 

My point is that you all have debated if an area met this or that definition to justify what the committee can do "by the rules

 

 I say simple is better. I don't care what the area is "defined as", or whether it's permanent or temporary. I only care that the course/comitte said you cannot play from in there and you get a drop - either with or without penalty. Mark the area and any drop zone tell everyone and move on. No difference in usefulness compared to GUR or anything else... just a whole bunch simpler.

[sui generis]

3 minutes ago, just_steveu said:

Admittedly I need to read up on the changes since 2009 - I was the rules guy for my league until I stopped playing regularly when I lost my job in 2009.

 

Not a matter of whether I agree or not, its their rules I just play by them. 

 

My point is that you all have debated if an area met this or that definition to justify what the committee can do "by the rules

 

 I say simple is better. I don't care what the area is "defined as", or whether it's permanent or temporary. I only care that the course/comitte said you cannot play from in there and you get a drop - either with or without penalty. Mark the area and any drop zone tell everyone and move on. No difference in usefulness compared to GUR or anything else... just a whole bunch simpler.

 

My, oh, my, you really have a lot of "catching up" to do. I'd say you need to start over and read Tufts and go to school. 🙄

[just_steveu]

Fair enough... I'll go read... two years ago I closed a 30 year run as a hockey official. I should be able to read and interpret the new USGA book.

Edited February 15, 2021 by just_steveu

[sui generis]

6 minutes ago, just_steveu said:

Fair enough... I'll go read... 

 

Here's a wonderful resource which tackles the way the Rules work. (It's outdated, but only in its Rule number references.)

 

https://www.usgapublications.com/products/principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-paperback-2016-edition?variant=25702107654

 

I'd say everyone who's at all deep in the Rules universe has a copy and refers to it from time-to-time. The Rules are a journey. 🙂

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, just_steveu said:

 

 

I say simple is better. I don't care what the area is "defined as", or whether it's permanent or temporary. I only care that the course/comitte said you cannot play from in there and you get a drop - either with or without penalty. Mark the area and any drop zone tell everyone and move on. No difference in usefulness compared to GUR or anything else... just a whole bunch simpler.

All you are saying is that the situation should be what the situation is.