Contiguous GUR and path.

[Steven Rules]

More info please. What is the situation you are trying to avoid or what is the outcome you are trying to promote by variously creating a penalty area and/or GUR and/or a Local Rule?

 

[rulie]

Obviously a picture is needed to help clear up the confusing and expanding descriptions.

 

[Swango1980]

Have to admit, I thought I understood the OP with clarity. But I was thrown as soon as Penalty Area was thrown into the mix.

The original problem seemed to be about simplifying the free relief procedure by only requiring one drop, and a potential solution seems to be to make it a penalty area, so that now only one drop is required, but under penalty

 

[rulefan]

Have to admit, I thought I understood the OP with clarity. But I was thrown as soon as Penalty Area was thrown into the mix.

The original problem seemed to be about simplifying the free relief procedure by only requiring one drop, and a potential solution seems to be to make it a penalty area, so that now only one drop is required, but under penalty

Still messy. If a lateral drop is taken from the PA the ball may finish on the path involving another drop.
Of course none of the drops are compulsory in any situation (unless a NPZ gets thrown into the mix )

 

[jim8flog]

A simple reason for making it a penalty area is that anybody losing a ball in it or dropping out for unplayable lie has to do so under penalty the other options give relief without penalty.

Thanks to all I have the info I need to take to committee. No point in going further until they make a decision.

 

[rulefan]

A simple reason for making it a penalty area is that anybody losing a ball in it or dropping out for unplayable lie has to do so under penalty the other options give relief without penalty.

Thanks to all I have the info I need to take to committee. No point in going further until they make a decision.

Will you be recommending PA?

 

[jim8flog]

Will you be recommending PA?

Yes

 

[jim8flog]

This is a pic from a very old course map. The continuous red line is the path and the dotted one OB. Bunker on the left is now reshaped and is closer to the path and extends across about one third of the front of the green. It does not give a true view of the relationship of the path to the scrub area.

 

[rulefan]

This is a pic from a very old course map. The continuous red line is the path and the dotted one OB. Bunker on the left is now reshaped and is closer to the path and extends across about one third of the front of the green. It does not give a true view of the relationship of the path to the scrub area.



View attachment 50321

Can you please confirm that the proposed PA is to the left of the path (ie between the path and the OB margin.
Would it extend for the whole extent of the path?

 

[salfordlad]

I'm late to this discussion, but I'll throw in a new angle for completeness. 2023 brought a new Committee option that did not exist previously. A Committee can now employ new MLR F-24 and define immovable obstructions (IO) within a PA as a relief situation, offering free relief within the PA for the specified IO (in addition to penalty relief outside the PA). For example, on a specific hole, there might be good reason to mark a section of cart path as inside the PA - it may simplify course marking and relief situations in a case where a player may get a playable stroke from a drop inside the PA clear of the IO (ie, it would not require a player to pay a penalty for path relief). Most commonly, this MLR can work to void the problem of PA stakes being declared immovable (common on multiple courses) but it may also offer advantages in examples such as cart path near PA/green interfaces.
I am not advocating for this here - just noting it is something that might usefully be explored/assessed - we are no longer constrained to what applied for hundreds of years.

 

[rulie]

I don't see any issue with the hole the way it has been shown and described. Your original post talked about GUR and the cart path - I don't see that in the picture, where is the GUR and how does it impact play?
What problem(s) are you trying to fix by local Rule which the Rules do not already cover? Imo, local Rules will never overcome player ignorance, including the lack of reading the local Rules!
It's only a 135 yard par three.

 

[jim8flog]

I don't see any issue with the hole the way it has been shown and described. Your original post talked about GUR and the cart path - I don't see that in the picture, where is the GUR and how does it impact play?
What problem(s) are you trying to fix by local Rule which the Rules do not already cover? Imo, local Rules will never overcome player ignorance, including the lack of reading the local Rules!
It's only a 135 yard par three.

My OP simply requested guidance to the local Rule which has now been identified I did not say there was a GUR area . We are simply exploring our options.

 

[jim8flog]

Can you please confirm that the proposed PA is to the left of the path (ie between the path and the OB margin.
Would it extend for the whole extent of the path?

yes to Q1
undecided to Q2

 

[jim8flog]

Time to close this thread.
I asked one simple question which has been answered.

 

[rulefan]

Time to close this thread.
I asked one simple question which has been answered.

You introduced a new element after your OP.
Including a PA into the topic has made a significant and possibly unwarranted change. What made you think of that?

 

[jim8flog]

You introduced a new element after your OP.
Including a PA into the topic has made a significant and possibly unwarranted change. What made you think of that?

I was merely responding to questions asked over and above what was in the OP.

I had always thought of having a Penalty Area as one of the options and had tried to get it in when the rules changed in 2019.

It is only the County requiring drop zones for one of their comps that has brought it back to the 'surface'. I have always maintained that we could not have drop zones and certainly not before 2019. They had suggested to the club that we have them in the past and I used to direct the club to the decision in the decisions book that said we were not allowed drop zones.
County are now saying we can have them because the decisions are no longer valid.

I have been sticking my oar in because LRs have been part of my responsibility for many years and a new LR written by someone else was not good enough.

Like many clubs I am sure when managers/committees change they try to change many things that have already been agreed e.g the original agreement when the path was laid was that the area to left would be maintained so that players did not have to drop in a 'scrub' area. One of the optoions is that we go back to doing this so the whole thread will be irrelevant anyway.

 

[rulefan]

I have always maintained that we could not have drop zones and certainly not before 2019. They had suggested to the club that we have them in the past and I used to direct the club to the decision in the decisions book that said we were not allowed drop zones.
County are now saying we can have them because the decisions are no longer valid.

What was that decision?

Edit: I guess 33-8/19. But that was when the area could not be a PA (only WHs existed then).

The mapping summary doesn't help. It says NO CHANGE but I'm never sure if 'X' means Eliminated or Nor Eliminated

 

[rulie]

I presume that you are referring to old Decision 33-8/19 about prohibiting dropping zones. The mapping summary says the outcome of that Decision did not change in 2019, and to see Committee procedures section 8L (in 2019 book). The Committee procedures section was reorganized in 2023 and are now covered in section 2L, section 8(Guidelines for Establishing Local Rules) and 8E.
Part of the Guidelines suggests that a Committee must not use a Local Rule to waive or modify a Rule of Golf simply because it might prefer a Rule to be different. However, in section 8E, it does say that dropping zones should be considered when there may be practical problems with players using the normal relief options under a Rule.
I'm not sure what/why the "County" considers the reason or logic in suggesting dropping zones. Perhaps you can explore and/or explain that.

 

[rulefan]

I presume that you are referring to old Decision 33-8/19 about prohibiting dropping zones. The mapping summary says the outcome of that Decision did not change in 2019, and to see Committee procedures section 8L (in 2019 book). The Committee procedures section was reorganized in 2023 and are now covered in section 2L, section 8(Guidelines for Establishing Local Rules and 8E.
Part of the Guidelines suggests that a Committee must not use a Local Rule to waive or modify a Rule of Golf simply because it might prefer a Rule to be different. However, in section 8E, it does say that dropping zones should be considered when there may be practical problems with players using the normal relief options under a Rule.
I'm not sure what/why the "County" considers the reason or logic in suggesting dropping zones. Perhaps you can explore and/or explain that.

I made my Edit without having seen your post which was helpful.

 

[rulie]

What was that decision?

Edit: I guess 33-8/19. But that was when the area could not be a PA (only WHs existed then).

The mapping summary doesn't help. It says NO CHANGE but I'm never sure if 'X' means Eliminated or Nor Eliminated

I think the X means the Decision per se has been eliminated from the new book; the important part is that the outcome was not changed.