Penalty Area drop

[LICC]

This seems like another rule that either doesn’t make sense or is poorly applied. Add the Cam Smith LIV drama and this looks really petty by the Tour. 
 

If you can play a ball from a Penalty Area why can’t your relief drop be in the Penalty area?

https://golf.com/news/cam-smith-delayed-penalty-raises-questions/

[DaveP043]

35 minutes ago, LICC said:

This seems like another rule that either doesn’t make sense or is poorly applied. Add the Cam Smith LIV drama and this looks really petty by the Tour. 
 

If you can play a ball from a Penalty Area why can’t your relief drop be in the Penalty area?

https://golf.com/news/cam-smith-delayed-penalty-raises-questions/

Should he be required to play the dropped ball, if it rolls into the Penalty Area?  That's what might happen if the Rule expanded the Relief Area to include the appropriate portion of the Penalty Area.  The Rules shouldn't give him the choice of either "I like this lie, even if its in the PA, I'll play it", or "The ball rolled into some nasty grass, but its in the PA, I can choose to drop it again to get a better lie."  This is simple, the Rules clearly specify a Relief Area, and the dropped ball must land in and come to rest stay within that Relief Area.  And it seems very logical that if you're going to take Relief from a Penalty Area, that relief must be outside of the Penalty Area.

Edited August 15, 2022 by DaveP043

[NM01]

Pretty straightforward ruling.

He had a ball in the penalty area after a drop. That’s not allowed. 
 

He played the ball and admitted when asked from inside the penalty. Thus it’s a ball played from wrong spot penalty.

Probbaly as clear cut of a ruling as there has been lately 

[LICC]

41 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

if you're going to take Relief from a Penalty Area, that relief must be outside of the Penalty Area.

This is the part that is hard to understand. Why must the relief area be outside of the Penalty Area? That is more arbitrary than logical.

You hit a ball into the water. It's gone. You take the line that it crossed, and you drop (following all the rules on the proper drop of the ball) and the ball comes to rest in the Penalty Area. Why can that not be part of the relief area? 

Granted, if he knew the rule, he would have tried to drop again, and if it still was in the PA, could have placed it. But it isn't intuitive that the ball came to rest in a spot that was playable, that he is not allowed to play it. What advantage does he gain being able to accept the ball at rest in the Penalty Area if he wants?

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, LICC said:

This is the part that is hard to understand. Why must the relief area be outside of the Penalty Area? That is more arbitrary than logical.

Individuals with questions about the Rules of Golf or Rules of Amateur Status can contact the USGA as follows:

Phone: 908-326-1850
Fax: 908-234-9687

E-mail: Rules@usga.org

[DaveP043]

30 minutes ago, LICC said:

This is the part that is hard to understand. Why must the relief area be outside of the Penalty Area? That is more arbitrary than logical.

You hit a ball into the water. It's gone. You take the line that it crossed, and you drop (following all the rules on the proper drop of the ball) and the ball comes to rest in the Penalty Area. Why can that not be part of the relief area? 

Granted, if he knew the rule, he would have tried to drop again, and if it still was in the PA, could have placed it. But it isn't intuitive that the ball came to rest in a spot that was playable, that he is not allowed to play it. What advantage does he gain being able to accept the ball at rest in the Penalty Area if he wants?

Under the Rules, if you drop a ball properly, and it comes to rest in the Relief Area, it is in play.  In your scenario, the Relief Area would extend into the Penalty Area.  Consider a ball that is dropped properly, and comes to rest under water in the Relief Area.  Is that ball in play, just as if it were in the grass in the Penalty Area?  Does the player need to take relief a second time from that Penalty Area?  Or does he get the choice to drop again without penalty?  That would be the only time a player has a choice to accept a legitimate drop, or to re-drop.  Is that what you'd prefer?

[LICC]

48 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Individuals with questions about the Rules of Golf or Rules of Amateur Status can contact the USGA as follows:

Phone: 908-326-1850
Fax: 908-234-9687

E-mail: Rules@usga.org

Sure- the moderators should just eliminate the Rules Discussion topic entirely off this Board, and replace it with the phone number for the USGA, because no one should post opinions or questions about the rules here ...

[LICC]

21 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Under the Rules, if you drop a ball properly, and it comes to rest in the Relief Area, it is in play.  In your scenario, the Relief Area would extend into the Penalty Area.  Consider a ball that is dropped properly, and comes to rest under water in the Relief Area.  Is that ball in play, just as if it were in the grass in the Penalty Area?  Does the player need to take relief a second time from that Penalty Area?  Or does he get the choice to drop again without penalty?  That would be the only time a player has a choice to accept a legitimate drop, or to re-drop.  Is that what you'd prefer?

That scenario would be easily addressed- the Relief Area cannot be under water.

[cnosil]

Just now, LICC said:

Sure- the moderators should just eliminate the Rules Discussion topic entirely off this Board, and replace it with the phone number for the USGA, because no one should post opinions or questions about the rules here ...

You are free to ask questions about the rules and ask for clarifications.   You generally don’t seek understanding but to complain that in your opinion  they are arbitrary, illogical, and not the way the rules should be written.  The best option for those discussions is to contact the the USGA or the R&A.  

[LICC]

1 minute ago, cnosil said:

You are free to ask questions about the rules and ask for clarifications.   You generally don’t seek understanding but to complain that in your opinion  they are arbitrary, illogical, and not the way the rules should be written.  The best option for those discussions is to contact the the USGA or the R&A.  

Ok, so questions for clarifications are allowed, but opinions about rules are forbidden on this forum according to your edict. Thankfully your dictates don't matter.

[DaveP043]

15 minutes ago, LICC said:

That scenario would be easily addressed- the Relief Area cannot be under water.

Now the definition of the Relief Area is directly related to the Areas of the Course, which are clearly defined.  Now you want to add another qualification to the Relief Area for a single relief situation?  Or would that same qualification need to apply to ALL relief situations, free relief and penalty relief both, just to keep the rules as consistent as possible?  Free Relief under 16.1 would be to the nearest point of relief from the Abnormal Course Condition, even if that point is in a PA?  Or do you just want to pick and choose when its "logical" to you?

There is simple logic in the Rule as written, if you are taking relief FROM a Penalty Area, that relief must be OUTSIDE the same Penalty Area.  Making it different, as well as more complicated, doesn't improve the logic at all.

Edited August 15, 2022 by DaveP043

[cnosil]

10 minutes ago, LICC said:

Ok, so questions for clarifications are allowed, but opinions about rules are forbidden on this forum according to your edict. Thankfully your dictates don't matter.

@DaveP043does a great job explaining the rules, the basis for rules, and why they are written the way they are.  There are numerous discussions about opinions of the rules that have some good discussion. I specifically pointed you to the governing bodies because the answers you seek are probably better answered those individuals. 

[LICC]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Now the definition of the Relief Area is directly related to the Areas of the Course, which are clearly defined.  Now you want to add another qualification to the Relief Area for a single relief situation?  Or wouldn't that same qualification need to apply to ALL relief situations, free relief and penalty relief both, just to keep the rules as consistent as possible?  Free Relief under 16.1 would be to the nearest point of relief from the Abnormal Course Condition, even if that point is in a PA?  Or do you just want to pick and choose when its "logical" to you?

There is simple logic in the Rule as written, if you are taking relief FROM a Penalty Area, that relief must be OUTSIDE the same Penalty Area.  Making it different, as well as more complicated, doesn't improve the logic at all.

I've heard it said that every complicated problem has a simple solution that is usually bad. It sounds fine that relief from a PA must be outside the PA, but when you think more deeply you see that is a simplistic, rather than logical, approach. I don't see the difficulty in the concept that a relief area can include any area that the ball is playable. More to this point, Cam Smith got harmed for no good reason. He had no advantage hitting his shot were he did compared to an inch away.  

[LICC]

5 minutes ago, cnosil said:

@DaveP043does a great job explaining the rules, the basis for rules, and why they are written the way they are.

I agree. @DaveP043 is terrific.

5 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I specifically pointed you to the governing bodies because the answers you seek are probably better answered those individuals. 

No you didn't. You posted the phone numbers to be condescending and snarky, and you just made yourself look bad in the process. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by LICC

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

Cam Smith got harmed for no good reason.

Cam Smith was penalized for doing something the Rules don't allow, and for his ignorance of the Rules.  And unlike many of his online apologists, he took the news calmly and without complaint.  I wonder what people would be saying if it was Patrick Reed doing exactly the same thing.

[TR1PTIK]

Always love it when @LICC wants to propose "logical" rules changes in the most illogical way and argue with everyone in the forum about why he's right. You asked your question and got your answer. Move on...

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Always love it when @LICC wants to propose "logical" rules changes in the most illogical way and argue with everyone in the forum about why he's right. You asked your question and got your answer. Move on...

I usually find these discussions interesting, for a while.  Thinking through one suggested change often reveals how inter-connected many of the rules are, and how a single change might impact other issues.  

[LICC]

24 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Always love it when @LICC wants to propose "logical" rules changes in the most illogical way and argue with everyone in the forum about why he's right. You asked your question and got your answer. Move on...

Ah, another dictator of the Rules forum. Thanks for trying to give input ...

[TR1PTIK]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

I usually find these discussions interesting, for a while.  Thinking through one suggested change often reveals how inter-connected many of the rules are, and how a single change might impact other issues.  

Yes, civilized discussions about reasonable rules changes that make sense are worth discussing. As we've seen a number of times though, that is rarely the case once we start trying to apply LICC-logic. 

The relief area is a designated area wherein relief is taken from a penalty area, obstruction, or other abnormal condition as defined by the rules. Cam failed to take relief from the PA and was subsequently assessed a penalty for playing from the wrong spot. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, why would one want to take "relief" in a PA? How would a rule be written in such a way that you could drop in a PA and not be forced to play from the water should the ball roll down an embankment and come to rest there? The rule is written in a perfectly logical and fair way. Cam didn't appear to know the rules well enough to re-drop outside the PA.

The only questionable thing about the ruling was the timing which is why something needs to change on Tour. I understand they can't have a rules official hovering over every aspect of play to ensure an infraction doesn't occur, but maybe there should be some discussion of a time-limit for imposing penalties. The Tour is its own entity and one of a select few places where high resolution, high frame rate cameras are used to capture shots which can be reviewed at a later time. A technology that is not used for every player and every shot BTW.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

The only questionable thing about the ruling was the timing which is why something needs to change on Tour. I understand they can't have a rules official hovering over every aspect of play to ensure an infraction doesn't occur, but maybe there should be some discussion of a time-limit for imposing penalties. The Tour is its own entity and one of a select few places where high resolution, high frame rate cameras are used to capture shots which can be reviewed at a later time. A technology that is not used for every player and every shot BTW.

Two comments.  First, there IS a time limit in the Rules of Golf, its in the Exception to 3.3b(3).  The time limit is the "close of the competition".  I'm not sure that the PGA Tour could develop an acceptable Local Rule that would change that time limit.

Second, although there certainly ARE hi-res and fast frame rate cameras, the Rules limit their use.  First, 1.3b(2) accepts a player's reasonable judgement in many cases, even if subsequent video information proves that judgement to be in error.  Also, 20.2c limits the use of video evidence to what can reasonably be seen by the naked eye.

[TBS]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

That scenario would be easily addressed- the Relief Area cannot be under water.

I imagine that the USGA does not want to have to address every what-if in this scenario. Easier (although in this case might not seem logical) to make it a black and white ruling. I'm thinking about all of the different types of penalty areas and as a player, I would much rather know a simple rule than have to think through all of the other options. 

Golf is cool because these rules also govern your club tournament. (except local rules).

[NM01]

29 minutes ago, TBS said:

I imagine that the USGA does not want to have to address every what-if in this scenario. Easier (although in this case might not seem logical) to make it a black and white ruling. I'm thinking about all of the different types of penalty areas and as a player, I would much rather know a simple rule than have to think through all of the other options. 

Golf is cool because these rules also govern your club tournament. (except local rules).

Not to mention what other rules need to be updated to reflect these changes. As Dave pointed out once you dive into the rules you see how intertwined they are.

Some fail to see this in their “logic”

[TR1PTIK]

23 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Two comments.  First, there IS a time limit in the Rules of Golf, its in the Exception to 3.3b(3).  The time limit is the "close of the competition".  I'm not sure that the PGA Tour could develop an acceptable Local Rule that would change that time limit.

Second, although there certainly ARE hi-res and fast frame rate cameras, the Rules limit their use.  First, 1.3b(2) accepts a player's reasonable judgement in many cases, even if subsequent video information proves that judgement to be in error.  Also, 20.2c limits the use of video evidence to what can reasonably be seen by the naked eye.

Was aware of the second rule mentioned - my primary point being, would this have been noticed in another competition where cameras are not used? Or, would this have been appropriately addressed to another player not on camera? It's not that he didn't violate the rule, but if he didn't know he was in violation and no one in his group caught it, would it have been addressed? Hard to say...

I was not aware of the first rule you mentioned, but my thoughts of a limit were a little more finite than that. If this had occurred on Thursday and wasn't addressed until Sunday that would seem a bit of stretch. I'm not sure what would be most appropriate, but I do think the passing of time is what has most people upset at these types of rulings - where penalties are assessed next day.

[LICC]

46 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Yes, civilized discussions about reasonable rules changes that make sense are worth discussing. As we've seen a number of times though, that is rarely the case once we start trying to apply LICC-logic. 

The relief area is a designated area wherein relief is taken from a penalty area, obstruction, or other abnormal condition as defined by the rules. Cam failed to take relief from the PA and was subsequently assessed a penalty for playing from the wrong spot. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, why would one want to take "relief" in a PA? How would a rule be written in such a way that you could drop in a PA and not be forced to play from the water should the ball roll down an embankment and come to rest there? The rule is written in a perfectly logical and fair way. Cam didn't appear to know the rules well enough to re-drop outside the PA.

The only questionable thing about the ruling was the timing which is why something needs to change on Tour. I understand they can't have a rules official hovering over every aspect of play to ensure an infraction doesn't occur, but maybe there should be some discussion of a time-limit for imposing penalties. The Tour is its own entity and one of a select few places where high resolution, high frame rate cameras are used to capture shots which can be reviewed at a later time. A technology that is not used for every player and every shot BTW.

With all the mistakes in your post about time limits and the use of high-res cameras, you aren't in any position to condescend about logic.

It is very easy to write a rule to address your question.- The relief area would not include any position where the ball is unplayable.

Why would someone want to take relief in a PA? That is not the issue. The issue is why shouldn't someone be able to play a ball from a drop that came to rest in a PA. Cam Smith just did it and he had no problem playing the shot where it was.

[LICC]

8 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Not to mention what other rules need to be updated to reflect these changes. As Dave pointed out once you dive into the rules you see how intertwined they are.

Some fail to see this in their “logic”

I addressed all that. It's pretty easy to follow.

[LICC]

9 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Was aware of the second rule mentioned - my primary point being, would this have been noticed in another competition where cameras are not used? Or, would this have been appropriately addressed to another player not on camera? It's not that he didn't violate the rule, but if he didn't know he was in violation and no one in his group caught it, would it have been addressed? Hard to say...

I was not aware of the first rule you mentioned, but my thoughts of a limit were a little more finite than that. If this had occurred on Thursday and wasn't addressed until Sunday that would seem a bit of stretch. I'm not sure what would be most appropriate, but I do think the passing of time is what has most people upset at these types of rulings - where penalties are assessed next day.

So other players in the field should not be protected from someone's rules violation while the tournament is still ongoing because you want some arbitrary time deadline?

[TR1PTIK]

3 minutes ago, LICC said:

It is very easy to write a rule to address your question.- The relief area would not include any position where the ball is unplayable.

Given the number of time we've seen pros play from the water it wouldn't be immediately clear that this the case. However, I'm well aware of your concerns regarding water and OB on golf courses.

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

So other players in the field should not be protected from someone's rules violation while the tournament is still ongoing because you want some arbitrary time deadline?

Following this argument along "logical" lines, the current rule that stands is equally as arbitrary and unjust to the rest of the field if penalties are not imposed after the competition has ended. We should go back through time and right all the wrongs of previous tournaments! *Insert sarcasm here*

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, LICC said:

It is very easy to write a rule to address your question.- The relief area would not include any position where the ball is unplayable.

Perhaps my memory isn't great, don't I remember you taking issue with a players ability under the rules to take unplayable ball relief when the ball was actually playable?  Who is to decide whether a ball is playable, rather than simply in an undesirable lie in the PA?  Its a bad idea to insert additional subjectivity to relief situations, the Rules should endeavor to be as clear-cut as possible.  They're clear now, a ball that lands in and comes to rest in the Relief Area is in play.  If its unplayable, go ahead and take additional relief, with the appropriate penalty.

[LICC]

7 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Following this argument along "logical" lines, the current rule that stands is equally as arbitrary and unjust to the rest of the field if penalties are not imposed after the competition has ended. We should go back through time and right all the wrongs of previous tournaments! *Insert sarcasm here*

The end of the tournament seems to me like a logical point in time.