Unauthorised Local Rules

[jim8flog]

Pre 2019 the R&A had a list of the Local Rules (that may have been applied for) that were not allowable. May have been in Decisions Book or part of guidance for committees for setting up a course.

Does any body know if the list still exists, where to access it and would it still apply?

 

[doublebogey7]

All covered by Para 8 in the Committee Procedures.

 

[jim8flog]

All covered by Para 8 in the Committee Procedures.

no it is not

 

[rulefan]

All covered by Para 8 in the Committee Procedures.

This Section (8. Model Local Rules) lists authorized Model Local Rules that may be used by a Committee:

• These can either be adopted in their entirety or can serve as an example of how to write a particular type of Local Rule.

However:

• Local Rules are authorized only if they are consistent with the policies established in this Section.

 

[doublebogey7]

no it is not

Seems I have misread what you were asking for, though I don't remember ever seeing such a list pre 2019.

 

[rulefan]

Pre 2019 the R&A had a list of the Local Rules (that may have been applied for) that were not allowable. May have been in Decisions Book or part of guidance for committees for setting up a course.

Does any body know if the list still exists, where to access it and would it still apply?

Within the old Decisions Index there is a list of Local Rules. There seems to be no specific list of unauthorised but a number of the entries include the expression ":whether authorised."
The few I have checked turn out to be not authorised.

 

[Steven Rules]

The old Decisions book (2016/2017) has, in effect, a list of unauthorised local rules (with the occasional authorised one interspersed throughout) under Rule 33-8. There is about 18 pages worth.

Definitely no longer relevant (although some people may find the explanations to be useful background reading) and well and truly superseded by the philosophy in Section 8 of the current Committee Procedures - especially the preamble and 8L.

 

[rulefan]

Having done a quick scan through the Index to Local Rules and the Rules under 33-8 itself I realised the number of unauthorised is much greater than I thought.
I also found it was quicker to search in the Rules looking for the answer No than the Index looking for whether authorised

But as SR says - no longer relevant

 

[Steven Rules]

But as SR says - no longer relevant

...and, of course, one can consult the R&A Mapping Summary Chart to identify where each of those Decisions (unauthorised local rules) have ended up in the post-2019 rules.

 

[jim8flog]

I need to quote a specific 'not authorised rule' from the decision book to our manager hence my requirement to find a copy if I can. I have told him the rule verbally just want to back up my verbal reasoning as to why that LR should not be introduced currently.

For reference it relates to dropping zones and the ruling that says it is not allowable to create a dropping zone for relief where relief is allowed* if there is a place on the course where the ball can de dropped regardless of the condition that spot (e.g in very long grass)

*In the current situation a NPZ means the nearest point can be on a made up path, then the nearest point of relief for the path will be in very long grass.

Suggestions as to what to do about the area of very long grass have been made.

 

[rulefan]

I think you may have 33-8/19 in mind. The mapping summary suggests it is still appropriate but the decision itself has been removed. You should see Committee Procedure Section 8L
which says:

While a Committee has significant authority under the Rules of Golf to adopt Local Rules to fit the particular needs of a course or competition, any Local Rules that it chooses to put in place must be consistent with the policies established in Section 8, Model Local Rules.
In addition, Committees must not write a Local Rule that goes beyond the authorized Local Rules in ways which compromise the basic principles of the Rules of Golf.

If the Committee believes that a Local Rule not covered by the policies established in Section 8 may be needed because of local abnormal conditions that interfere with fair play, it should consult the R&A

 

[Steven Rules]

I need to quote a specific 'not authorised rule' from the decision book to our manager hence my requirement to find a copy if I can. I have told him the rule verbally just want to back up my verbal reasoning as to why that LR should not be introduced currently.

For reference it relates to dropping zones and the ruling that says it is not allowable to create a dropping zone for relief where relief is allowed* if there is a place on the course where the ball can de dropped regardless of the condition that spot (e.g in very long grass)

*In the current situation a NPZ means the nearest point can be on a made up path, then the nearest point of relief for the path will be in very long grass.

Suggestions as to what to do about the area of very long grass have been made.

I am afraid I may not be understanding your need. Stripping everything else away from the scenario, are you seeking to prove that it is (or is not) permissible to put a dropping zone in long grass?

I think you are referring to old Decision 33-8/19 which relates to providing relief (a dropping zone) when the nearest point of relief (old terminology) off a path is often on a very steep slope and effectively gives no relief. The Decision says that such a local rule/dropping zone just to avoid such adverse circumstances is not appropriate. "It is not abnormal for areas adjacent to paved paths to have dense underbrush, trees, sharpslopes, etc, thereby providing no practical relief.....Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to establish dropping zones on the fairway side of the path to alleviate the problem."

I may be misunderstanding your problem but Decision 33-8/19 in effect says that the positioning of a dropping zone doesn't necessarily need to make the next shot 'easy' for the player.

In my opinion you would be on very shaky ground to be quoting old Decisions to support an argument.

Decision 33-8/19 has been mapped to Committee Procedures 8L but 8L doesn't cover the specifics of this scenario. 8E-1 and 2I have the current info on dropping zones.

 

[jim8flog]

I am afraid I may not be understanding your need. Stripping everything else away from the scenario, are you seeking to prove that it is (or is not) permissible to put a dropping zone in long grass?

I think you are referring to old Decision 33-8/19 which relates to providing relief (a dropping zone) when the nearest point of relief (old terminology) off a path is often on a very steep slope and effectively gives no relief. The Decision says that such a local rule/dropping zone just to avoid such adverse circumstances is not appropriate. "It is not abnormal for areas adjacent to paved paths to have dense underbrush, trees, sharpslopes, etc, thereby providing no practical relief.....Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to establish dropping zones on the fairway side of the path to alleviate the problem."

I may be misunderstanding your problem but Decision 33-8/19 in effect says that the positioning of a dropping zone doesn't necessarily need to make the next shot 'easy' for the player.

In my opinion you would be on very shaky ground to be quoting old Decisions to support an argument.

Decision 33-8/19 has been mapped to Committee Procedures 8L but 8L doesn't cover the specifics of this scenario. 8E-1 and 2I have the current info on dropping zones.

Thanks for the reference. If we still have the decisions book in the office I can just show him that

I am just quoting to the manager the history, and why I got the DZ removed back when the path was first put in to place.