Red Stakes

[rulie]

We'll we're on this subject, I just want to check I ruled myself correctly on this in my medal round on Saturday. Not least because I advised someone to do exactly the same thing the day after in the same situation, ha.

So on our 12th, this ditch is marked with red stakes, and it runs on the kind of back-side of the hedge/bushes on the right of the green as well. I've drawn that with dotted lines since you can't see that part of it on the aerial view. The blue arrow is the direction my shot came in, and the blue dot is where I ended up, since it sort of went straight towards the bush on the end, but then must have rolled a few yards along the ditch after it landed in it.

Rather than take a drop out on the right, on the 9th hole, and having to try and flop it over a hedge, I figured it had actually crossed the line of the hazard at the green X, so I put a tee in the ground there, then measured two club lengths to the left (not nearer the hole of course), and put another tee in there (green dot), then dropped my ball between those two tee pegs. Was I right to do this? Obviously it benefitted me because then I could chip straight to the green from here, rather than having a much harder shot over a hedge if I'd have dropped out near that bunker - and I always have a niggling doubt when the rules benefit me for a change.

View attachment 58462

I don't see an option under the Rules where you could drop behind the hedge near the bunker. Doing so would have put you in a wrong place, imo.

 

[salfordlad]

Actually it didnt...it just showed the 2 club length arc crossing over the penalty area. The cross hatched areas are the relief areas.

Precisely. And at the risk of preaching to the choir (perhaps some readers will find this useful), the theme of this discussion is universal, arising in ANY relief area, whether it be penalty relief from penalty areas or unplayable ball, or free relief under other rules. There are restrictions on each relief area which vary by the specific rule. To establish the specific/available relief area, we start with a reference point (eg point of last crossing PA edge; NPCR; position of ball etc); identify the size limit (eg 1CL, 2CL, card-length etc) - which allows a mapping of all space within the size limit; and then apply the relief area limits (eg not nearer the hole, area of the course limits, whether complete relief required etc) - which chops out lumps of the space within the size limit - and in extreme cases can result in no available (or fair) relief area under that rule and here a Committee can consider adding a Dropping Zone.
The drawing in #8 is a simple and accurate example of this process.

 

[Orikoru]

I don't see an option under the Rules where you could drop behind the hedge near the bunker. Doing so would have put you in a wrong place, imo.

Yeah, I just think that is where I may have gone wrong in the past. If you look back at the image I made - one who didn't know the rule fully might look at where they found their ball and drop straight back from there in line with the flag - which could put you the other side of the bunker, having to play over that and the hedge. (Pin was on the back left portion of green.) Knowing that you drop where it first crossed the red stake line ended up being beneficial in this case.

 

[Steven Rules]

Knowing that you drop where it first crossed the red stake line ended up being beneficial in this case.

With the minor correction that the reference point is where the ball last (not first) crossed the edge of the penalty area. Mostly these will be one and the same point, but occasionally they may be different.

 

[cliveb]

I have referred to the rules as I read them. There is no scope for straddling the penalty area with those rules as they are written.

I have not read the clarifications. I am not embarrassed about that either.

It seems to me that the rule needs to be re-written to allow this straddling of the penalty area when identifying the relief area.
At the moment, the rule does not allow straddling of the penalty area in the form that it is written.

Notwithstanding this specific rule issue, isn't the point of clarifications to address ambiguities/misunderstandings of the written rule?
In other words, the fact that clarifications exist is an implicit acknowledgement that it's possible to be confused as to the exact meaning of a rule and some additional explanation is required. And the clarification is precisely the "re-write" you're asking for.

 

[Voyager EMH]

In the definition of Relief Area the following text exists...

In using club lengths to determine the size of the relief area, the player may measure directly across a ditch, hole or similar.....

In the definition of Penalty Area the following text exists...

A penalty area is - any body of water on the course (whether or not marked by the committee) including a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface draining ditch....

So the first definition allows you to measure across a ditch, and a ditch, by the second definition, is a penalty area...ergo you can measure across a penalty area.

Wrong conclusion drawn here.

The second definition is "any body of water ..." and then defines them.

A permanently dry ditch, this could be a shallow sided sculpted depression, would fit the first description of ditch but not the penalty area definition.

So there is no "ergo ..." since "ditch, hole or similar" (that are not penalty areas) that you are allowed to measure "directly across" is merely a stipulation that you do not measure down the sides and back up again, but horizontally across.

I have accepted that straddling the red penalty area is allowed under the rules via the clarification.
It makes perfect sense to me that this should be allowed.

But I maintain that the regular rules do not specifically state this and what they do state is not worded sufficiently clearly to allow this.
What we need is a change to the wording of the limits to the relief area, "May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area".

The semi-circle in the drawing below includes part of the penalty area.
The above rule states that you must not do this. As soon as you measure into the penalty area you are in breach of this rule. It is not worded sufficiently to allow this.
The only way to comply is not to straddle the penalty area.
Only with reference to the clarification can you conclude that this is allowable.



I would like to see a change in the rules that makes it very clear that straddling the penalty area is allowed. At the moment it is not very clear that this is allowed.
Yet it is allowed - and quite rightly should be so, in my view.

 

[clubchamp98]

Actually it didnt...it just showed the 2 club length arc crossing over the penalty area. The cross hatched areas are the relief areas.

Not questioning the rule but if you have to measure two club lengths over a ditch how can you accurately measure this as you can’t put the club on the ground?

Is it best guess or is there some formula.

 

[Colin L]

Wrong conclusion drawn here.

The second definition is "any body of water ..." and then defines them.

A permanently dry ditch, this could be a shallow sided sculpted depression, would fit the first description of ditch but not the penalty area definition.

So there is no "ergo ..." since "ditch, hole or similar" (that are not penalty areas) that you are allowed to measure "directly across" is merely a stipulation that you do not measure down the sides and back up again, but horizontally across.

I have accepted that straddling the red penalty area is allowed under the rules via the clarification.
It makes perfect sense to me that this should be allowed.

But I maintain that the regular rules do not specifically state this and what they do state is not worded sufficiently clearly to allow this.
What we need is a change to the wording of the limits to the relief area, "May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area".

The semi-circle in the drawing below includes part of the penalty area.
The above rule states that you must not do this. As soon as you measure into the penalty area you are in breach of this rule. It is not worded sufficiently to allow this.
The only way to comply is not to straddle the penalty area.
Only with reference to the clarification can you conclude that this is allowable.

View attachment 58470

I would like to see a change in the rules that makes it very clear that straddling the penalty area is allowed. At the moment it is not very clear that this is allowed.
Yet it is allowed - and quite rightly should be so, in my view.

Endless repetition of the same error doesn't change it into a fact.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Endless repetition of the same error doesn't change it into a fact.

That is why I would like the "error" of lack of clarity in the rules to be corrected.

The "fact" is that straddling the penalty area is allowed, but without more clarity, the "error" of lack of clarity remains endlessly.

I will reserve a right to continue to respond, if posts are directed to me.
I think the rule is not clear.
This is my view.
Others might hold the view that the rules are explicit enough to allow straddling the penalty area. These might be in a majority on this forum. Not necessarily so in the wider golfing world.

Snide remarks directed at me, when I hold a view that is valid, based on my understanding of English phrasing, will quite definitely receive a response.

 

[backwoodsman]

Wrong conclusion drawn here.

The second definition is "any body of water ..." and then defines them.

A permanently dry ditch, this could be a shallow sided sculpted depression, would fit the first description of ditch but not the penalty area definition.

So there is no "ergo ..." since "ditch, hole or similar" (that are not penalty areas) that you are allowed to measure "directly across" is merely a stipulation that you do not measure down the sides and back up again, but horizontally across.

I have accepted that straddling the red penalty area is allowed under the rules via the clarification.
It makes perfect sense to me that this should be allowed.

But I maintain that the regular rules do not specifically state this and what they do state is not worded sufficiently clearly to allow this.
What we need is a change to the wording of the limits to the relief area, "May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area".

The semi-circle in the drawing below includes part of the penalty area.
The above rule states that you must not do this. As soon as you measure into the penalty area you are in breach of this rule. It is not worded sufficiently to allow this.
The only way to comply is not to straddle the penalty area.
Only with reference to the clarification can you conclude that this is allowable.

View attachment 58470

I would like to see a change in the rules that makes it very clear that straddling the penalty area is allowed. At the moment it is not very clear that this is allowed.
Yet it is allowed - and quite rightly should be so, in my view.

Methinks one is forgetting that the definition of a penalty area includes the words " ... even if not containing water.)

 

[IanMcC]

Steven Rules sorted out this complete issue in post #13. There is absolutely no contradiction, and nothing to re-write in the Rules.
What I find quite astounding here, is that someone who brazenly says he knows the Rules and plays by them, can come out with a statement saying that he ignores a huge section of them, the Clarifications.
I wonder what others he ignores when it suits him.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Steven Rules sorted out this complete issue in post #13. There is absolutely no contradiction, and nothing to re-write in the Rules.
What I find quite astounding here, is that someone who brazenly says he knows the Rules and plays by them, can come out with a statement saying that he ignores a huge section of them, the Clarifications.
I wonder what others he ignores when it suits him.

Your snide remark is appalling. Completely misguided and an insult.

I do not ignore the clarifications.
On the course, if I refer to the rules.
I do not read or consult the clarifications as a matter of course, if I feel the rules have sufficiently informed me.

If I gave the impression that my intention is to never read the clarifications then that was a mistake. I would read them, if I felt I should on any particular matter.

I think this would be the scenario of the vast majority of golfers who consult the rules.

Yes, Steven Rules clarified the matter very well.
I continue to hold the opinion that the instruction on identifying and limiting the relief area is poorly written and not explicit enough for the vast majority of golfers to proceed correctly on the rare occasion when the relief area can be allowed to straddle the penalty area.
More explicit wording and an illustration would, and I say this without any doubt, improve the written instruction on identifying and limiting the relief area.

Without this improvement, many golfers will not even consider the option of using relief on the opposite side of the penalty area when this may be allowable.
Improving the rules, not necessarily changing them, but removing ambiguities or misconceptions, is a process of which I fully approve.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I wonder what others he ignores when it suits him.

I will ignore this comment, because it is baseless garbage.

 

[salfordlad]

The semi-circle in the drawing below includes part of the penalty area.
The above rule states that you must not do this. As soon as you measure into the penalty area you are in breach of this rule.

I continue to be entranced with why you don't see this the way I see it, this frustrates the educator in me. (Don't lose sleep, I'll get over it.) But I will try once more.

The critical issue is the semi-circle is NOT the relief area.

A relief area is defined by a reference point, a distance from the reference point (not nearer the hole) and the list of excluded things. In the case of penalty area relief (lateral and BOL), the excluded thing is a short list (unlike some other rules), it is only the same penalty area. The excluded things are never part of the player's relief area.

Every relief area (this is not a penalty area specific ssue or a problem with penalty area rule words) where the exclusions have practical impact require the player to map out a possible area where relief may conceivably apply (sometimes a semi-circle, sometimes a full circle etc) and then exclude everything that is not available for relief. The result can be a complex, oddly shaped creature in some presentations. The cross-hatched relief area in Nick's diagram (the only "relief area" in that diagram) is quite simple.

In defining every relief area correctly, "straddling" the excluded bits is not only permitted, it is key to complying with the Rules.

 

[Colin L]

Wrong conclusion drawn here.

The second definition is "any body of water ..." and then defines them.

A permanently dry ditch, this could be a shallow sided sculpted depression, would fit the first description of ditch but not the penalty area definition.

It usually pays to take into account the whole of a Definition. You have missed out (even if not containing water)

 

[Steven Rules]

The critical issue is the semi-circle is NOT the relief area.

A relief area is defined by a reference point, a distance from the reference point (not nearer the hole) and the list of excluded things. In the case of penalty area relief (lateral and BOL), the excluded thing is a short list (unlike some other rules), it is only the same penalty area. The excluded things are never part of the player's relief area.

Exactly. I had been weighing in my mind whether to chime in again along similar lines.

The wording of the Rules makes no mention whatsoever of semi-circles or circles; only distances from reference points. It follows, then, that there is no suggestion whatsover in the Rules that relief areas (of whatever shape or size) must be continuous.

The diagrams in the Rules, which are intended as schematic illustrations of the underpinning principles, seem to have taken over as the sole source of truth (for at least one person in particular) in preference to what the words actually say. In this instance, therefore, rather than assisting the understanding (of one user at least), they appear to be blocking the application of the principles to broader scenarios. "There is no diagram illustrating this scenario, therefore it cannot be so...."

If one reads the actual words, rather than looks solely at the diagrams, then one would surely agree that there is no need for a rewrite.

Would there be any "confusion" on this specific issue of continuous versus non-continuous relief areas if there were no illustrations at all in the Rules?

 

[Voyager EMH]

The relief area,

"May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area"

So a player identifies the point of entry.
He starts to envisage his penalty area from there.
He does not consider his relief area to extend into (or beyond) the penalty area, because of the above sentence.

I do not consider anyone acting this way to be at fault.
The one sentence I have quoted would lead someone to take this course of action. It is reasonable for someone to make this judgement based on this wording.
They can continue to take this action, because it does not infringe the rules.

A better written instruction at that point in the instruction on limiting the relief area would be a good thing.
To claim it unnecessary to do so is not a view that I share.

I am sure I could encounter many experienced golfers who would identify their relief area on the same side of the penalty area as the relief point (correctly and with no infringement) and not be aware that there is a possibility of some relief area to be on the other side within two clublengths of the entry point.
It would be an improvement if this possibility was indicated at the same point of the instruction as the above sentence in quotation marks.

There we have it. An endless repetition of my view.
My view is not a fact.
It is a valid view.
I do not accept that my view should not be allowed to be expressed. It is not an unacceptable view due to offensiveness or any other reason.
It is based on a desire for improvement and clarity. These are genuine reasons and I should not be castigated for having these wishes.

I am able to deal with insults, slurs and snide remarks. I am little phased by them. They are unnecessary.

Yours sincerely,

One particular contributor

 

[backwoodsman]

The relief area,

"May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area"

So a player identifies the point of entry.
He starts to envisage his penalty area from there.
He does not consider his relief area to extend into (or beyond) the penalty area, because of the above sentence.

I do not consider anyone acting this way to be at fault.
The one sentence I have quoted would lead someone to take this course of action. It is reasonable for someone to make this judgement based on this wording.
...

I supect you are the only person - or at least one of only few people - who have this thought. Most of us don't think this way and don't consider there to be any contradiction. But I also fear that it's obvious we won't be able to change your opinion.

At least we all now know what the correct ruling is ...

 

[Swango1980]

I supect you are the only person - or at least one of only few people - who have this thought. Most of us don't think this way and don't consider there to be any contradiction. But I also fear that it's obvious we won't be able to change your opinion.

At least we all now know what the correct ruling is ...

And writing incredibly long posts, multiple times, to explain why you are incorrect in your understanding of a rule doesn't change the fact that you are still wrong.

 

[Voyager EMH]

And writing incredibly long posts, multiple times, to explain why you are incorrect in your understanding of a rule doesn't change the fact that you are still wrong.

I'm not wrong.
You are wrong to state that my being wrong is a fact.
I understand the rule.
I continue to hold the view that the form of the explanation could be improved. This does not make me wrong.
As it stands, "May be in any area of the course except the same penalty area" can lead someone to not realise a potential relief area on the other side from the entry point of a red penalty area. I am 95% certain that this does occur in the minds of many golfers.

(Those who vote on something and turn out to be in a minority are not wrong to have voted the way that they did. They held a valid opinion.