RULES - I FOUND THIS EXPERIENCE ODD - The RULE ?

[nsxguy]

7 hours ago, Pastit said:

Anyone with half-a-brain can see the point, as the early respondents did. Kindly take your your malice elsewhere. 

 

Thank you for confirming my latest post. 👍

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, Pastit said:

Anyone with half-a-brain can see the point, as the early respondents did. 

 

So.... what exactly is "the GUR rule for new plantations" ?

[nsxguy]

18 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So.... what exactly is "the GUR rule for new plantations" ?

 

While he hasn't been very clear, or forthcoming, as he could have been, I'm thinking he may have meant a local rule to play newly planted flower beds as GUR.

 

We see that from time-to-time here in the States, mostly on higher end courses. The lower end courses don't often plant flower beds. LOL

 

But then I only have half a brain so I may be mistaken.

[Colin L]

7 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

But then I only have half a brain so I may be mistaken.

Depends which half deals with the Rules of Golf. 🥴

[Pastit]

20 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So.... what exactly is "the GUR rule for new plantations" ?

What caused needless hassle was that virtually every hole at a venue used for an elite amateur event contained pine copses of some size indeed, as were the trees. The rule giving relief is usually based upon the standard GUR rule with local adaptions for special features. It would have been better to either have the issue attended to properly or select a venue hassle-free.
 

In this case, it appeared that no special advice was given to the players other than a local rule on the card. This resulted in bedlam as different relief was being taken by the groups. This included balls dropped on the fairway side of copses when balls were hit on the other sides. P.s. I should just add that this event was not a formal one and so not run under the auspices of the local golf union. I’d hazard a guess that it came free for the organisers. 
 

I have seen this before at my home club, when the fencing around the copses was a confusing factor, particularly to high handicappers, when they took relief way further back behind the copses than the committee had intended feeling that they should be able to drop far enough back to clear the fences; whereas the committee felt players should only have 2 club lengths enabling them to play sideways if necessary. Sorry for the delay.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Pastit
Omission

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Pastit said:

In this case, it appeared that no special advice was given to the players other than a local rule on the card.

1) What did this  Local Rule say about taking relief?

2) Was there some confusion between GUR relief and Unplayable Ball relief?

3) Was the area deemed to be a Penalty Area?

Edited November 21, 2022 by Newby

[Pastit]

27 minutes ago, Newby said:

1) What did this  Local Rule say about taking relief?

2) Was there some confusion between GUR relief and Unplayable Ball relief?

3) Was the area deemed to be a Penalty Area?

See above please. 

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Pastit said:

I have seen this before at my home club, when the fencing around the copses was a confusing factor, particularly to high handicappers, when they took relief way further back behind the copses than the committee had intended feeling that they should be able to drop far enough back to clear the fences; whereas the committee felt players should only have 2 club lengths enabling them to play sideways if necessary. Sorry for the delay.

 

Sounds very peculiar Local Rule indeed. Two club-lengths, huh? Free relief?? Based on what?

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Sounds very peculiar Local Rule indeed. Two club-lengths, huh? Free relief?? Based on what?

I'm guessing (because info to date is limited) something like newly planted or fenced areas of vegetation are NPZ/ACC. But you can guarantee chaos and inconsistency if no clear local rule is prepared and posted clearly. If many players were doing stuff inconsistently, there is a case to void the competition and learn from the lesson. Somebody responsible for the competition needs to be in effective communication with someone responsible for the course to be able to deal with issues like this and if this is not done in time unfortunate things happen.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, antip said:

I'm guessing (because info to date is limited) something like newly planted or fenced areas of vegetation are NPZ/ACC. But you can guarantee chaos and inconsistency if no clear local rule is prepared and posted clearly. If many players were doing stuff inconsistently, there is a case to void the competition and learn from the lesson. Somebody responsible for the competition needs to be in effective communication with someone responsible for the course to be able to deal with issues like this and if this is not done in time unfortunate things happen.

 

Yeah, but 2 cl from NPZ/ACC ???

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, antip said:

I'm guessing (because info to date is limited) something like newly planted or fenced areas of vegetation are NPZ/ACC. But you can guarantee chaos and inconsistency if no clear local rule is prepared and posted clearly. If many players were doing stuff inconsistently, there is a case to void the competition and learn from the lesson. Somebody responsible for the competition needs to be in effective communication with someone responsible for the course to be able to deal with issues like this and if this is not done in time unfortunate things happen.

 

Agreed. I can't quite figure out whether this was a small group of small trees and the entire area was (supposed to be) GUR or whether each small tree was its own GUR.

 

And it seems like a high level comp would have players that, at the very least, would know where to drop from GUR.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Yeah, but 2 cl from NPZ/ACC ???

 

Yeah, even under the old rules (as this situation seems like it might have been before the 2019 rules) I believe it would be 1CL from nearest full relief of stance & swing.

 

But descriptions are confusing and changing.

 

OP originally called the event a "high status amateur team match" and a little later referred to it as an "elite amateur game" but now he says "this event was not a formal one and so not run under the auspices of the local golf union".

 

Nevertheless he also says "This resulted in bedlam as different relief was being taken by the groups. This included balls dropped on the fairway side of copses when balls were hit on the other sides".

 

Have to wonder why a relatively easy free relief situation, especially for players of this caliber, would be so difficult and cause so much confusion.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by nsxguy

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yeah, but 2 cl from NPZ/ACC ???

one of multiple unexplained mysteries

[Pastit]

9 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Agreed. I can't quite figure out whether this was a small group of small trees and the entire area was (supposed to be) GUR or whether each small tree was its own GUR.

 

And it seems like a high level comp would have players that, at the very least, would know where to drop from GUR.

 

 

Yeah, even under the old rules (as this situation seems like it might have been before the 2019 rules) I believe it would be 1CL from nearest full relief of stance & swing.

 

But descriptions are confusing and changing.

 

OP originally called the event a "high status amateur team match" and a little later referred to it as an "elite amateur game" but now he says "this event was not a formal one and so not run under the auspices of the local golf union".

 

Nevertheless he also says "This resulted in bedlam as different relief was being taken by the groups. This included balls dropped on the fairway side of copses when balls were hit on the other sides".

 

Have to wonder why a relatively easy free relief situation, especially for players of this caliber, would be so difficult and cause so much confusion.

 

 

Your last para hits the nail exactly dead centre, thanks. It shows an apathy to the the rules for a high proportion of the field. If the event had been run by the local golf union instead of a newspaper group then referees would have been on hand or a better venue selected in the first place. 
 

The whole course was planted out with c 8’ high pine trees in c 4 - 8 areas per copse with c 20-30 saplings per hole and fenced with c 3’ high chicken-wire fencing I think it’s called. Clearly, if one is behind a copse, I.e. on the tee side, the wire fence can be a worse hazard than the plantings. But is there to try and prevent entry but also to stop players hitting through the copses. 
 

The event was an annual event of area club champions, mostly scratch players.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Pastit
Omission

[Newby]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yeah, but 2 cl from NPZ/ACC ???

NPZ/Red PA ?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

NPZ/Red PA ?

 

Possible, but why make a newly planted bush a PA?

 

Sounds more like a confused author.

[Pastit]

14 hours ago, antip said:

I'm guessing (because info to date is limited) something like newly planted or fenced areas of vegetation are NPZ/ACC. But you can guarantee chaos and inconsistency if no clear local rule is prepared and posted clearly. If many players were doing stuff inconsistently, there is a case to void the competition and learn from the lesson. Somebody responsible for the competition needs to be in effective communication with someone responsible for the course to be able to deal with issues like this and if this is not done in time unfortunate things happen.

You’re correct, the gent below appears to be reading “ a single tree planting “ into a situation of “ copses “ I.e. Mr B, multiple saplings. I’m just letting him get on with it. You have a clear understanding. 

 

The sponsor/ organisers of the event have changed but both were/ are newspaper or magazine publishers and have/ do leave rule-issues to the host club. I’m aware of another high-profile event the latest organiser handled which also was unclear on handicap allowances. 

[Colin L]

There could be a good case for making a copse a penalty area rather than GUR if you have to prevent play from it.  It might well be unreasonable to allow a player free relief for the consequences of badly offline shot and fairer for them to pay a penalty for getting out of it.  If I were sitting in the middle of the fairway after two strokes with an easy wedge to the green and my opponent had hacked way off line into a copse of trees, I would be mightily miffed if next thing he was dropping clear of it with an easy wedge to the green for his 3rd stroke.

 

 

[Pastit]

35 minutes ago, Colin L said:

There could be a good case for making a copse a penalty area rather than GUR if you have to prevent play from it.  It might well be unreasonable to allow a player free relief for the consequences of badly offline shot and fairer for them to pay a penalty for getting out of it.  If I were sitting in the middle of the fairway after two strokes with an easy wedge to the green and my opponent had hacked way off line into a copse of trees, I would be mightily miffed if next thing he was dropping clear of it with an easy wedge to the green for his 3rd stroke.

 

 

This is the VIP point when chicken wire fences are used leading to an unnatural object put in play and some taking relief way behind where they should. I found this embarrassing to watch on such an important day when we took legal relief and won it the next year on our home course. 

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

There could be a good case for making a copse a penalty area rather than GUR if you have to prevent play from it.  It might well be unreasonable to allow a player free relief for the consequences of badly offline shot and fairer for them to pay a penalty for getting out of it.  If I were sitting in the middle of the fairway after two strokes with an easy wedge to the green and my opponent had hacked way off line into a copse of trees, I would be mightily miffed if next thing he was dropping clear of it with an easy wedge to the green for his 3rd stroke.

 

 

 

Well, those things happen, be it a copse as GUR or an electric box. However, if the main idea is to stop anyone making a stroke from a newly planted vegetation the only rational thing IMO would be NPZ+GUR. After all, it is not the player's fault if the course decided to plant trees or bushes and prevent playing from there.

[Colin L]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well, those things happen, be it a copse as GUR or an electric box. However, if the main idea is to stop anyone making a stroke from a newly planted vegetation the only rational thing IMO would be NPZ+GUR. After all, it is not the player's fault if the course decided to plant trees or bushes and prevent playing from there.

 My apologies then, for making an irrational suggestion - and indeed having set up a PA/NPZ on my own course on such an irrational basis.  😃  It is, however, the player's fault for hitting his ball offline and into the copse.

 

And what would you say to trees planted with the intention of adding to the challenges of the course but which requires protection while the saplings mature?

[nsxguy]

8 minutes ago, Colin L said:

 My apologies then, for making an irrational suggestion - and indeed having set up a PA/NPZ on my own course on such an irrational basis.  😃  It is, however, the player's fault for hitting his ball offline and into the copse.

 

And what would you say to trees planted with the intention of adding to the challenges of the course but which requires protection while the saplings mature?

 

Not that it matters and I have no desire to speak for Mr B, but I would suggest that if those (now) matured and unprotected trees are STILL a PA, then fine.

 

But if, once they mature, they're now part of the course and no longer a PA then they shouldn't have been marked a PA in the first place. Not to mention the course would need to be re-rated because of all the new PAs (OP did say they were all over the course).

 

i.e. the staked (and now we know fenced off) trees are a temporary condition, as is (hopefully) GUR

[Mr. Bean]

11 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not that it matters and I have no desire to speak for Mr B, but I would suggest that if those (now) matured and unprotected trees are STILL a PA, then fine.

 

But if, once they mature, they're now part of the course and no longer a PA then they shouldn't have been marked a PA in the first place. Not to mention the course would need to be re-rated because of all the new PAs (OP did say they were all over the course).

 

i.e. the staked (and now we know fenced off) trees are a temporary condition, as is (hopefully) GUR

 

I agree. There is no reason to make those areas PA as they will not be PAs when the trees have grown up.

 

Then again, we all have our own views.

[Mr. Bean]

25 minutes ago, Colin L said:

 My apologies then, for making an irrational suggestion - and indeed having set up a PA/NPZ on my own course on such an irrational basis.  😃  It is, however, the player's fault for hitting his ball offline and into the copse.

 

It certainly is, but why on earth one copse should be PA while another is not?? And why not all planted vegetation should be PA if one is?

 

FWIW, I have so far never seen any protected plants to be PA as IMO it makes zero sense.

[Colin L]

Let's not confuse a copse of trees with an area of plants which will always require protection.  Trees grow big and strong.    While the trees are maturing and require protection, you make the area a NPZ.  If the intention is to allow play from it once the trees are big enough as a challenge to the player such that it costs the player a stroke to get out of it, then the NPZ should be placed in a PA.  

 

Whether the likes of a flowerbed  which has to be protected  permanently should be GUR/NPZ  or PA/NPZ  depends, I reckon, on how much advantage taking relief is for the player and that has much to do with where it is  and what sort of challenge the area presented before being cultivated in some way.

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not that it matters and I have no desire to speak for Mr B, but I would suggest that if those (now) matured and unprotected trees are STILL a PA, then fine.

 

But if, once they mature, they're now part of the course and no longer a PA then they shouldn't have been marked a PA in the first place. Not to mention the course would need to be re-rated because of all the new PAs (OP did say they were all over the course).the staked (and now we know fenced off) trees are a temporary condition, as is (hopefully) GUR

 

Ah well, I seem to be alone in considering the possibility that GUR  in some situations could give some players an undue advantage, a get out of jail free card,  and that there could be circumstances in which it should cost them a stroke for getting the relief.   That's a pity because I think it is in the interests of players for us always to consider the impact of how you mark the course on  play and on the fairness of the competition.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

Ah well, I seem to be alone in considering the possibility that GUR  in some situations could give some players an undue advantage, a get out of jail free card,  and that there could be circumstances in which it should cost them a stroke for getting the relief.   That's a pity because I think it is in the interests of players for us always to consider the impact of how you mark the course on  play and on the fairness of the competition.

You're not alone. I mentioned "NPZ/Red PA ?" a while back.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Newby

[antip]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

Ah well, I seem to be alone in considering the possibility that GUR  in some situations could give some players an undue advantage, a get out of jail free card,  and that there could be circumstances in which it should cost them a stroke for getting the relief.   That's a pity because I think it is in the interests of players for us always to consider the impact of how you mark the course on  play and on the fairness of the competition.

Ultimately, the Committee needs to do some clear thinking on exactly what is the challenge they are creating. That should guide whether they want compulsory penalties to apply for sending the ball into a specific space.

 

And there is an alternate, non-penalty route to ensuring no-one gets an inappropriate leg up from GUR - make it NPZ/ACC with compulsory use of specific Dropping Zone(s) that create appropriate consequences for the situation.

[Augster]

3 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

Ah well, I seem to be alone in considering the possibility that GUR  in some situations could give some players an undue advantage, a get out of jail free card,  and that there could be circumstances in which it should cost them a stroke for getting the relief.   That's a pity because I think it is in the interests of players for us always to consider the impact of how you mark the course on  play and on the fairness of the competition.

You’re not alone. The straight hitters in my club are with you. 
 

For years, on our 15th hole, it was a red PA on both sides of the hole. It was just woods, but it was red to speed up play. It’s a tight hole, tall trees, and a left dogleg. If someone couldn’t control their slice, they could have to hit multiple provisionals to get a ball they could find. So the powers that be made it red both sides. 
 

Fast forward to this year. We had a bunch of renovations this year and on both sides of 15 they planted plants and underbrush in the woods. No idea why, but I’m not privy to the decisions. 
 

To “protect” the new underbrush, they put fences down both sides and made them NPZ-GUR. It was free drop all summer whereas, for a LONG time, It was always a penalty drop. 
 

The straight hitters hated this all year long. It’s a tough driving hole and opponents and FC’s that can’t control their ball used to be lying 3 after another errant tee ball. This year they were lying 2. It certainly wasn’t fair to players that can control their ball. 
 

Supposedly they are taking the fences down next year and going back to red stakes. I’m on the committee for my men’s club now. If they don’t take the fences down, I’ll be pushing for the areas to be NPZ-PA’s as they should have been this year. 

[Double Mocha Man]

4 minutes ago, Augster said:

You’re not alone. The straight hitters in my club are with you. 
 

For years, on our 15th hole, it was a red PA on both sides of the hole. It was just woods, but it was red to speed up play. It’s a tight hole, tall trees, and a left dogleg. If someone couldn’t control their slice, they could have to hit multiple provisionals to get a ball they could find. So the powers that be made it red both sides. 
 

Fast forward to this year. We had a bunch of renovations this year and on both sides of 15 they planted plants and underbrush in the woods. No idea why, but I’m not privy to the decisions. 
 

To “protect” the new underbrush, they put fences down both sides and made them NPZ-GUR. It was free drop all summer whereas, for a LONG time, It was always a penalty drop. 
 

The straight hitters hated this all year long. It’s a tough driving hole and opponents and FC’s that can’t control their ball used to be lying 3 after another errant tee ball. This year they were lying 2. It certainly wasn’t fair to players that can control their ball. 
 

Supposedly they are taking the fences down next year and going back to red stakes. I’m on the committee for my men’s club now. If they don’t take the fences down, I’ll be pushing for the areas to be NPZ-PA’s as they should have been this year. 

 

Maybe I missed something, but why the red stakes at all?  Let 'em hit out of the woods if they have errant drives...

[Augster]

5 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Maybe I missed something, but why the red stakes at all?  Let 'em hit out of the woods if they have errant drives...

Most of the time, they aren’t going to find the ball. Moreso now with the new, planted, underbrush. 
 

Back in the day, it wasn’t marked at all. Things would get REALLY slow in events when 3 or 4 guys have to hit multiple provisionals.