2019 Rules: rule 17.1d, relief from red penalty area

cliveb

Head Pro
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
3,314
Visit site
Just been casually looking at some of the new rules, and I have a question about relief from red penalty areas.

These red penalty areas are clearly intended to correspond to what we have up to now called lateral water hazards.
And under the current rules, an option for relief is to drop a ball two clubs lengths on the opposite side of the hazard from the point of entry.

I don't see the option to drop on the opposite side of the red penalty area in the new rule 17.1d. Has this option been eliminated, or have I missed something in the wording of the new rule?
 
It is not in the substantive rule but may be included as a local rule
Committee Procedures 8B-2
OK, thanks, I've now read that procedure.
Although I understand what they are saying, I can't for the life of me see what the rationale is for changing the way it used to work. Can anyone explain the thinking behind it?
 
Just been casually looking at some of the new rules, and I have a question about relief from red penalty areas.

These red penalty areas are clearly intended to correspond to what we have up to now called lateral water hazards.
And under the current rules, an option for relief is to drop a ball two clubs lengths on the opposite side of the hazard from the point of entry.

I don't see the option to drop on the opposite side of the red penalty area in the new rule 17.1d. Has this option been eliminated, or have I missed something in the wording of the new rule?

Red penalty areas no longer have to be areas of water.

The rational behind it one of the things to help speed up play. Sadly a lot of the documents that explained the reasoning behind the new rules seem to be no longer accessable.
 
Although the "2CL on opposite side" has gone, given that it is a red penalty area, there is still the option to drop on the other side - via the "on a line" option. Which for "red areas" - ie lateral hazards - will be on the opposite side for all but the very odd shaped areas.

Like others have said, I understand it was a pace of play thing. For most lateral hazards, getting round to the opposite side was seen as time consuming.

On the other hand, not sure how the new rule helps PoP in those situations where the ball crosses the hazard, then rebounds into it from the opposite side. Presumably you still have to go round & drop on that side - as the reference point is still "where the ball entered the penalty area" which is the same as the old "... where the ball last crossed the margin... "
 
OK, thanks, I've now read that procedure.
Although I understand what they are saying, I can't for the life of me see what the rationale is for changing the way it used to work. Can anyone explain the thinking behind it?

According to a document produced by the R&A explaining the rationale for each change...


Reasons for Change:
Opposite side relief is a complicated option that many players are not familiar with and that is seldom used.

The primary purpose behind this relief was to give an extra relief option for the unusual cases where neither back-on-the-line relief (Rule 26-1b) nor lateral relief on the side where the ball entered the water hazard (Rule 26-1c(i)) seem viable and the player’s only realistic option is to take relief under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 26-1a).

In practice, opposite side relief is often taken when a player actually has adequate relief under one or both of the other relief options and thus serves only to give an unnecessary extra option that at times can seem too advantageous.

o For example, where a stream runs next to a fairway and a line of trees or thicker rough is on the other side, a ball that is poorly played into the trees or rough and then bounces back into the water can result in the player being allowed to take relief on the fairway.

o For larger bodies of water such as a pond or small lake, opposite side relief can allow the player to play from a considerable distance away from where the ball entered the water or came to rest and/or to play from the fairway of another hole.

o Removing this option may, in rare situations, result in a player’s best (or only) option being stroke-and-distance relief; there is nothing wrong with a player sometimes having to proceed under stroke and distance.

Assessing the relief option for opposite side relief can take considerable time and so eliminating this option should benefit pace of play.

This change will also help avoid any concern that, with the expanded use of red penalty areas, a player might be able to use the opposite side option to drop on the green side of the penalty area, thereby avoiding the challenge of having to play over the penalty area.
 
According to a document produced by the R&A explaining the rationale for each change... [snip]
Thanks Nick. That all makes perfect sense.
(I should just point out that I wasn't complaining that the option had been removed - I was just curious why)
 
And the option of using the Local Rule providing such relief if the area merits it
Indeed - although hadnt realised until v recently.

And on that note, am l alone in worrying about the potential for confusion in this & similar situations - where someting that was a fundamental rule is now a possible local rule - but possibly only at some courses, and then possibly only at certain parts of a course?
 
As has always been the case, it is up to the club to make their local rules clear and upto the players to read and be familiar with them.

The RBS have made a good attempt to make life in general easier for the players, now ir is upto the players.
 
Top