Feedback on a couple questions

[Axiom]

24 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

 

There are O examples / bullet points / where the player receives only 1 penalty stroke.(4 and 5).

 

These two options are really connected to taking Rule 16 relief to avoid a penalty.

 

In these two bullet points the player has lifted his ball when PERMITTED to take relief

Okay so far - No penalty.

 

Now he realises he doesn't want to do this and proceeding under Unplayable would be better.

He does not want to incur a penalty stroke for lifting and not taking relief so his only option is to proceed under Rule 16.and then go Unplayable.

 

Two of the Unplayable options relate to a ball in play because you must have a reference point to proceed and a drop will be required to establish reference points .

Drop under 16 and select your Unplayable option from your new reference point.

Outcome 1 penalty stroke

Bullet Point 4.

 

 

In your 3rd and remaining Unplayable option (Stroke and Distance) -

the reference point has already been established for you ( spot of last stroke)

The authorities are not going to insist that---

you drop a ball under 16 and then under this S/D option  pick up the ball  straight away-

 because the reference point will not change (dropped or not) .

It would be a complete waste of time.

This procedure is similar to not having to replace a ball when you have already decided to proceed under a rule.(14.2/1)

 

So you go back to the spot of  the original shot for one penalty shot.

Bullet Point 5

 

It all about expediting the procedure to save time.

 

Hope this helps.😱😱

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Axiom
Missed something.

[Colin L]

I suspect that the structuring of 9.4b/6 is unhelpful in separating 4 & 5 when they are really one thing - having lifted and changed your mind  about taking relief

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

But if you read 9.4b/6 very carefully you will see that in one and only one instance the player gets only one penalty stroke instead of two WITHOUT the intent to take a penalty and that is what I have always wondered why. @ antip kindly tried to explain the difference a while back but I am still bewildered why S&D gets the player less penalties than other options of unplayable ball.

 

But wrt antip' post that I commented it was the question of intent. In 9.4b/6 last bullet case the player has no intent to take S&D before he lifts the ball. That was my point.

I  read 9.4b/6 very carefully (not for the first time!) and have now re-read it again.  Limegreenagent (a fascinating moniker, by the way) has explained the last two points very clearly.  I think the structuring of the Interpretation is unhelpful in that it might seem that the 4th and 5th items are separate matters when in fact they are about the one process - taking Rule 16 relief.  If you realise, having lifted from GUR that you've made a mistake because the relief area is in a terrible place, you can nonetheless take that relief without penalty (thus legitimising having lifted the ball) and then take unplayable relief at the cost of one stroke.  If you take the lateral or back on the line options, you have to drop in order to establish the reference point;  if you take the S&D option, you don't have to drop because the reference point is already known.  It would have been better to present this as one bullet point sub-divided into two, I think. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Colin L

[limegreengent]

5 minutes ago, Axiom said:

 Isn't this situation almost identical to the embedded ball scenario? The player lifts his ball to take free relief and then sees that it is not available and decides to take s&d relief. There is a slight difference, true, but is it enough of a difference? 

 

In the embedded ball circumstances you describe the player had no authority to lift the ball because no relief was available under Rule 16 so he cannot avoid the penalty.

 

Lifting from a cart path for R16 relief - when it was not an immovable obstruction -

would be similar to your embedded ball scenario and equally expensive.

😕

 

[Axiom]

6 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

 

In the embedded ball circumstances you describe the player had no authority to lift the ball because no relief was available under Rule 16 so he cannot avoid the penalty.

 

Lifting from a cart path for R16 relief - when it was not an immovable obstruction -

would be similar to your embedded ball scenario and equally expensive.

😕

 

Yes, I realized my error after I posted. I was too quick to pull the trigger.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

I suspect that the structuring of 9.4b/6 is unhelpful in separating 4 & 5 when they are really one thing - having lifted and changed your mind  about taking relief

I  read 9.4b/6 very carefully (not for the first time!) and have now re-read it again.  Limegreenagent (a fascinating moniker, by the way) has explained the last two points very clearly.  I think the structuring of the Interpretation is unhelpful in that it might seem that the 4th and 5th items are separate matters when in fact they are about the one process - taking Rule 16 relief.  If you realise, having lifted from GUR that you've made a mistake because the relief area is in a terrible place, you can nonetheless take that relief without penalty (thus legitimising having lifted the ball) and then take unplayable relief at the cost of one stroke.  If you take the lateral or back on the line options, you have to drop in order to establish the reference point;  if you take the S&D option, you don't have to drop because the reference point is already known.  It would have been better to present this as one bullet point sub-divided into two, I think. 

 

So the key would be not being able to establish the reference point accurately? That would be a lame excuse from the RBs as the reference point is most often estimated in the first place, especially in the BOL cases (specifically in R17).

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

 

There are TWO examples / bullet points / where the player receives only 1 penalty stroke.(4 and 5).

 

These two options are really connected to taking Rule 16 relief to avoid a penalty.

 

In these two bullet points the player has lifted his ball when PERMITTED to take relief

Okay so far - No penalty.

 

Now he realises he doesn't want to do this and proceeding under Unplayable would be better.

He does not want to incur a penalty stroke for lifting and not taking relief so his only option is to proceed under Rule 16.and then go Unplayable.

 

Two of the Unplayable options relate to a ball in play because you must have a reference point to proceed and a drop will be required to establish reference points .

Drop under 16 and select your Unplayable option from your new reference point.

Outcome 1 penalty stroke

Bullet Point 4.

 

 

In your 3rd and remaining Unplayable option (Stroke and Distance) -

the reference point has already been established for you ( spot of last stroke)

The authorities are not going to insist that---

you drop a ball under 16 and then under this S/D option  pick up the ball  straight away-

 because the reference point will not change (dropped or not) .

It would be a complete waste of time.

This procedure is similar to not having to replace a ball when you have already decided to proceed under a rule.(14.2/1)

 

So you go back to the spot of  the original shot for one penalty shot.

Bullet Point 5

 

I suppose that you could consider these to be NOTIONAL drops and Replace.

 

It all about expediting the procedure to save time.

 

Hope this helps.😱😱

 

No, it did not help at all as you are talking about entirely different thing that was on the table. Thanks for the effort anyway.

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So the key would be not being able to establish the reference point accurately? That would be a lame excuse from the RBs as the reference point is most often estimated in the first place, especially in the BOL cases (specifically in R17).

I don't get why the RBs need an excuse, lame or otherwise?  What for? 

 

The key is the need to establish a reference point for lateral or back on the line relief and the fact that the reference point is already established for S&D.    If you plan to take free relief from the GUR and then unplayable relief, you have to carry out the process of dropping in the relief area for the GUR in order to establish the reference point for the lateral or back on the line options for the penalty drop.  But the reference point for the S&D option is  already determined by the spot from which the previous stroke was made and you are allowed to go directly to S&D without wasting time carrying out an irrelevant drop from the GUR.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Colin L

[antip]

10 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That I understand but I do not understand why. But never mind, the important thing is to get it right, I do not have to understand the reasons behind it.

One further try at providing some "logic" that will work for you.....

 

You can take S&D any time. But deciding you will do S&D changes nothing that has occurred before that point of deciding on S&D. Some examples:

You accidentally move your ball in play, no 9.4 exceptions applies, you then decide on S&D. Two one stroke penalties (irrelevant whether you replace ball) - this is 18.1/2.

You lift your ball under any rule that permits a lift - eg any ACC interference - you then decide on S&D. Single one stroke penalty.

You lift your ball to take ACC relief, then decide it was a mistake and you return your ball to the original spot. You then decide on S&D. Two one stroke penalties.

You need to account for what has happened before the S&D action according to how the rules treat that previous action.

[Mr. Bean]

28 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I don't get why the RBs need an excuse, lame or otherwise?  What for? 

 

The key is the need to establish a reference point for lateral or back on the line relief and the fact that the reference point is already established for S&D.    If you plan to take free relief from the GUR and then unplayable relief, you have to carry out the process of dropping in the relief area for the GUR in order to establish the reference point for the lateral or back on the line options for the penalty drop.  But the reference point for the S&D option is  already determined by the spot from which the previous stroke was made and you are allowed to go directly to S&D without wasting time carrying out an irrelevant drop from the GUR.

 

 

 

I must say that I am not sure if you are just trying to argue or if you are serious with your arguments. Assuming you are serious I dare to give you my view.

 

When establishing the reference point for whichever relief one may need to use judgement. Than is true even and maybe specifically in cases when a ball has been lifted without marking and needs to be replaced, for one reason or another.

 

So, in 9.4b/6 cases the player lifts their ball in play. After that the player decides not to use the free relief. At this point the player may use S&D with 1 single penalty but not the other 2 options of R19 (unplayable ball) and for what reason? The reference point cannot be accurately be established? 

 

The relief area for unplayable ball is a semi circle of one club length from the reference point. And yet the area of this magnitude is not possible to be established with reasonable accuracy because the spot of the ball lifted cannot be accurately determined?

 

I say.... maybe I am too tired at this hour (2:30 am) to understand the reasoning behind the entire Rule but to be honest it would be soooooooooooooo much simpler to let the player escape with one penalty regardless the option used of R19.

 

Good night.

[antip]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I must say that I am not sure if you are just trying to argue or if you are serious with your arguments. Assuming you are serious I dare to give you my view.

 

When establishing the reference point for whichever relief one may need to use judgement. Than is true even and maybe specifically in cases when a ball has been lifted without marking and needs to be replaced, for one reason or another.

 

So, in 9.4b/6 cases the player lifts their ball in play. After that the player decides not to use the free relief. At this point the player may use S&D with 1 single penalty but not the other 2 options of R19 (unplayable ball) and for what reason? The reference point cannot be accurately be established? 

 

The relief area for unplayable ball is a semi circle of one club length from the reference point. And yet the area of this magnitude is not possible to be established with reasonable accuracy because the spot of the ball lifted cannot be accurately determined?

 

I say.... maybe I am too tired at this hour (2:30 am) to understand the reasoning behind the entire Rule but to be honest it would be soooooooooooooo much simpler to let the player escape with one penalty regardless the option used of R19.

 

Good night.

I fear it will not be a restful night...

[antip]

Well done TerpFan in bringing these forward, Q1 (in particular) certainly achieved the objective of promoting rules discussion.

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, antip said:

You lift your ball under any rule that permits a lift - eg any ACC interference - you then decide on S&D. Single one stroke penalty.

 

 Yes. BUT...

 

Why is it only S&D that gets one away with one PS, why not R19 options b and c? What makes S&D so sacred? 

 

P.S. You must have psychic properties in you... I slept only about 2 hours, woke up and went to the grocery store, 5 o'clock in the morning! Very safe to do shopping at that time 😆

[Colin L]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I must say that I am not sure if you are just trying to argue or if you are serious with your arguments.

 

 

Sorry but you didn't have to say that and it would have better left unsaid.  I was actually trying to share my understanding of this rule with a fellow rulie because I think he is having some difficulty in his understanding.  I too could be misunderstanding and, if so, someone will no doubt put me right.  I never have and never would deliberately put up an argument regardless of its worth just for the sake of an argument - which is what you imply.

 

But let's set that aside. What ideally happens in rules forums at their best is we help each other; we travel together on a sometimes difficult trail to understanding.  And I've always found that in trying to help someone else, I improve my own understanding through the deeper consideration of  the rule in question.

 

 In that spirit then, I suggest you are going down a wrong road in thinking about accuracy and estimation.  Here we have simple situation.  The player lifts his ball from GUR with the intention of taking free relief.  He realises he doesn't actually want to take relief but then works out that having lifted his ball his best option is to take relief after all and then take unplayable relief with its one stroke penalty.  Cut out his process of thought which we're not privy to anyway and what we have is a player who lifts his ball to take relief from the GUR and proceeds to take free relief.  

 

For the unplayable relief options of lateral or back on the line, he has to complete the process of taking the GUR relief because the reference point can be established only when his ball is on the ground following the drop. Estimating doesn't come into it. His relief area is fixed in either case - within 2 clublengths of the ball or on the line from the hole through the spot where the ball lies.  

 

For the option of stroke and distance, where his ball ends up if he completed the GUR relief process has nothing at all do with his reference point and to go through with the GUR relief would be a complete waste of time. All that the Interpretation does is to confirm that it is not necessary actually to take the GUR relief: you can go directly to the reference point for S&D and get on with it.   That reference point  is already established - an exact spot, the spot from which he played his last shot.  The possibility, likelihood even that the player cannot precisely identify that spot and his best estimate is acceptable is another matter.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Colin L

[antip]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 Yes. BUT...

 

Why is it only S&D that gets one away with one PS, why not R19 options b and c? What makes S&D so sacred? 

 

P.S. You must have psychic properties in you... I slept only about 2 hours, woke up and went to the grocery store, 5 o'clock in the morning! Very safe to do shopping at that time 😆

That's the crucial difference between 19.2a and 19.2b/c. You must have a CURRENT spot on the course to do the latter. If you have lifted a ball (or never found it) so do not have a current spot on the course, you cannot do b/c without recovering a spot on the course first. So if you lifted the ball originally to take ACC relief, you have to complete it (recover spot on the course) before you can do b/c. Or pay the penalty required to recover the original spot, and then do b/c.

Your argument that there are other situations where you can estimate a spot holds no water, IMO, in respect of Rule 19 - if you have no current spot on the course, those options are not available. So this discussion collapses to your view that you think the rule should be different.

 

Not psychic, just also have personal form in taking a head full of complex golf thinking directly to bed, and paying a price for such idiocy.

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, antip said:

That's the crucial difference between 19.2a and 19.2b/c. You must have a CURRENT spot on the course to do the latter. If you have lifted a ball (or never found it) so do not have a current spot on the course, you cannot do b/c without recovering a spot on the course first. So if you lifted the ball originally to take ACC relief, you have to complete it (recover spot on the course) before you can do b/c. Or pay the penalty required to recover the original spot, and then do b/c.

 

 

Thanks , that makes perfect sense !

[antip]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Thanks , that makes perfect sense !

Perhaps you can head back to bed now, isn't it supposed to be dark there 20 hours a day currently?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, antip said:

Perhaps you can head back to bed now, isn't it supposed to be dark there 20 hours a day currently?

 

Not here in the South, it is just 17 hours 😉 Besides, I went back to bed after having visited the grocery store.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, antip said:

That's the crucial difference between 19.2a and 19.2b/c. You must have a CURRENT spot on the course to do the latter. If you have lifted a ball (or never found it) so do not have a current spot on the course, you cannot do b/c without recovering a spot on the course first. So if you lifted the ball originally to take ACC relief, you have to complete it (recover spot on the course) before you can do b/c. Or pay the penalty required to recover the original spot, and then do b/c.

Your argument that there are other situations where you can estimate a spot holds no water, IMO, in respect of Rule 19 - if you have no current spot on the course, those options are not available. So this discussion collapses to your view that you think the rule should be different.

 

 

Still thinking about this...

 

So, one cannot use options b or c without having a ball down on a current spot. Then again, if the ball has been lifted those options are available after the ball has been replaced. That means that the 'current' spot is there all the time, otherwise the ball could not be replaced. It sure sounds funny that one needs to recover the spot by replacing the ball.

 

Well, I can live with that...

[limegreengent]

Well said Colin 

I agree with every word.🤗

[Colin L]

9 minutes ago, limegreengent said:

Well said Colin 

I agree with every word.🤗

 

Thanks for that; it's much appreciated ...... But is the gent going to reveal the cause of his limegreenness?    I have to dispel  a vision of the Incredible Hulk on the grounds he wasn't very gentlemanly.

 

[limegreengent]

Colin

Nothing interesting about it I'm afraid.

I started off as " Greenman"- 

A loose connection to the putting green.

Then  , some time ago , became aware of another user on Wrx using a very similar moniker involved with all the other forums.

So to avoid any confusion and  without much thought changed to the current version.

 

As I have sometimes been cordially referred - as to coming from another planet- 

It is probably appropriate- although you  have astutely commented that I may ,

at times , display some of the Hulk's finer qualities.🤗😂

I hold my hand up.

Regards.

[Colin L]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Still thinking about this...

 

So, one cannot use options b or c without having a ball down on a current spot. Then again, if the ball has been lifted those options are available after the ball has been replaced. That means that the 'current' spot is there all the time, otherwise the ball could not be replaced. It sure sounds funny that one needs to recover the spot by replacing the ball.

 

Well, I can live with that...

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I don't see a problem to live with - or keep anyone awake at night 😉

 

The spot on which the ball comes to rest in the relief area exists and is the spot from which you determine the relief area for lateral or back on the line relief whether your ball is still on it or has been lifted.  If you lift your ball before working out the relief area you don't have to replace it on that spot at any time.  

 

 

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Still thinking about this...

 

So, one cannot use options b or c without having a ball down on a current spot. Then again, if the ball has been lifted those options are available after the ball has been replaced. That means that the 'current' spot is there all the time, otherwise the ball could not be replaced. It sure sounds funny that one needs to recover the spot by replacing the ball.

 

Well, I can live with that...

It's not current when the player has the ball in their hand to take GUR relief, it is one of a number of options. At this point, the player can only take free relief under 16.1; take penalty relief under 9.4 and replace to the old spot - taking further penalty relief under 19.2b/c if desired; or take penalty S&D relief as defined by 14.6.

[antip]

1 hour ago, limegreengent said:

Colin

Nothing interesting about it I'm afraid.

I started off as " Greenman"- 

A loose connection to the putting green.

Then  , some time ago , became aware of another user on Wrx using a very similar moniker involved with all the other forums.

So to avoid any confusion and  without much thought changed to the current version.

 

As I have sometimes been cordially referred - as to coming from another planet- 

It is probably appropriate- although you  have astutely commented that I may ,

at times , display some of the Hulk's finer qualities.🤗😂

I hold my hand up.

Regards.

I had guessed - wrongly it transpires - that limegreengent was a play on the US description of Brits as "limeys".

[Purple Toupee]

21 minutes ago, antip said:

I had guessed - wrongly it transpires - that limegreengent was a play on the US description of Brits as "limeys".

If it were 1940, that might have been a reasonable guess.  But no one uses that phrase anymore.

[antip]

35 minutes ago, Purple Toupee said:

If it were 1940, that might have been a reasonable guess.  But no one uses that phrase anymore.

LGG may be a fan of historic traditions.

[Colin L]

I don't go for the rather prosaic 'changed from Greennman' story - too obviously a cunning ploy to hide the truth - which is rather more exotic.  I refer back to the days of Dan Dare of the Eagle comic (apologies to those too young to remember him) and his deadly foe the Mekon.  I don't know why he floated around in a sort of oversized chamberpot (the Mekon, that is):

 

  

Edited January 8, 2022 by Colin L

[limegreengent]

Mmm

 Great Content Guys-- 😂😂

It also proves one thing -

that I'm not the only one with a fantastic imagination who lives in a World of their own.

 

I am vaguely aware of Dan Dare- was it the " Beano" comic?

The Mekon is not familiar but that would have been a great Moniker with the photo which bears a resemblance.

💩💩💩

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by limegreengent

[Colin L]

I've gone off the Mekon idea - he was a rank baddie and not in any respect a gent.  Besides there is no evidence that he was a golfer.

He was  to be found in the Eagle, not the Beano and had, if I remember rightly, aspirations to be Master of the Universe but was always, naturally, thwarted by the clean-cut, clean-living and wholly virtuous Dan Dare.      The Eagle was far too moral and wholesome to host such wonderfully subversive  creations like Dennis the Menace.  I loved them both but because of the moral and wholesome angle, my parents bought the Eagle for me and I had to borrow from or barter for  a copy of the Beano from friends 🙂     But I shouldn't mock.  The Eagle was a wonderful comic and I have great memories of  it even though it didn't turn me into a clean-cut, clean-living, wholly virtuous clone of Captain Dare.  

 

Back to the off-topic topic.  I'll accept  Greenman as the origin of limegreengent but will start a new thread arguing that it should have been Greensman.

 

[TerpFangolfer]

17 hours ago, antip said:

Well done TerpFan in bringing these forward, Q1 (in particular) certainly achieved the objective of promoting rules discussion.

Yeah, being a relatively newbie here was just looking for confirmation that it was a bad question (how can they state answer without mentioning one word about what B&D scored unless they were implying that A's GP constitutes a team loss of hole - which it obviously didn't)...then once we got into what A's score would be in stroke play was certainly informational!

 

I'll be attending my 1st USGA in-person rules session in March...really looking forward and might try to bring up this question to them...