Penalty Area drop

[LICC]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

You do remember correctly, and I remember you fully supporting a player's full discretion in declaring a ball unplayable. Without going into that rule, I would say you can't be for subjectivity in one case and against it in another. However the rules apply to determining an "unplayable" ball is how I would use it in the drop situation. I believe that would be fair and a better rule.

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

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

And the end of a tournament round could be considered just as logical. My point is that your use of the term "arbitrary" is equally applicable. However, it is nice to see that you are willing to accept some rules as written without having to seek justification.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, LICC said:

You do remember correctly, and I remember you fully supporting a player's full discretion in declaring a ball unplayable. Without going into that rule, I would say you can't be for subjectivity in one case and against it in another. However the rules apply to determining an "unplayable" ball is how I would use it in the drop situation. I believe that would be fair and a better rule.

In the Unplayable Ball rule, a player is choosing to accept a penalty stroke in exchange for moving the ball to a more advantageous position.  In your proposed solution for a penalty area drop, the player is deciding whether to accept the results of his drop, or to re-drop FOR FREE if he thinks the ball is unplayable.  The difference is the relative cost of making a decision.  

[LICC]

4 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

And the end of a tournament round could be considered just as logical. My point is that your use of the term "arbitrary" is equally applicable. However, it is nice to see that you are willing to accept some rules as written without having to seek justification.

Yes, both have logic. But the end of the tournament has better justification in regards to implementation and fairness.

[LICC]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

In the Unplayable Ball rule, a player is choosing to accept a penalty stroke in exchange for moving the ball to a more advantageous position.  In your proposed solution for a penalty area drop, the player is deciding whether to accept the results of his drop, or to re-drop FOR FREE if he thinks the ball is unplayable.  The difference is the relative cost of making a decision.  

If the dropped ball rolls into the PA, the player gets a free re-drop now. And if it happens again he gets a free placement. The player being able to accept the drop in the PA as long as he deems it playable isn't any unfair advantage.

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

Yes, both have logic. But the end of the tournament has better justification in regards to implementation and fairness.

I don't disagree with you on this, and I personally wouldn't make any changes to the rule having learned about it. My only reason for even suggesting a change is simply to try and prevent the type of armchair quarterbacking that often accompany situations wherein a player is assessed a penalty after the conclusion of a round with no possible chance of correcting the error. That said, I think anyone playing or caddying on tour, or even at an elite amateur level, should be well-versed in the rules and adhere to them.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

If the dropped ball rolls into the PA, the player gets a free re-drop now. And if it happens again he gets a free placement. The player being able to accept the drop in the PA as long as he deems it playable isn't any unfair advantage.

As I said before, allowing the player to choose whether or not to re-drop (for free) is not acceptable.  As it stands, the player has no choice, the ball is either in play, or it MUST be re-dropped (or eventually placed), and that is the right way for the rule to work.  For me the issue is choice.  If you want to extend the Relief Area into the Penalty Area, fine, but the player must be required to accept the results of his drop.  The other issue is consistency.  If the RA can extend into the Penalty Area, it should do that for all relief situations.  Which could mean that your Nearest Point of Complete Relief for a ball on a car path could be in the Penalty Area.  

[LICC]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As I said before, allowing the player to choose whether or not to re-drop (for free) is not acceptable.

In my scenario, the player wouldn't be allowed to just choose. He would have to first determine the ball to be unplayable. As with every rule of golf, a player has to abide by Rule 1 in the Rules of Golf- act with integrity and be honest in all aspects of play.

Edited August 15, 2022 by LICC

[LICC]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Which could mean that your Nearest Point of Complete Relief for a ball on a car path could be in the Penalty Area.

Doesn't that sound fair? If the cart path is in a PA, you hit your ball into the PA, then your drop from the cart path results in the shot being from the PA.

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

In my scenario, the player wouldn't be allowed to just choose. He would have to first determine the ball to be unplayable. As with every rule of golf, a player has to abide by Rule 1 in the Rules of Golf- act with integrity and be honest in all aspects of play.

Still not acceptable.  I like the way it is, it makes much more sense, and its easier to enforce.  If the result of the drop is Unplayable, but still in the Relief Area, the player can use Rule 19 relief.

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

Doesn't that sound fair? If the cart path is in a PA, you hit your ball into the PA, then your drop from the cart path results in the shot being from the PA.

You're not understanding this.  First, if you have cart path interference, and your ball is in a Penalty Area, you don't get relief from the cart path. 

But assuming you get your way, and a Relief Area can extend into a Penalty Area, consistency would require that to be the case for all types of relief.  And the Nearest Point of Complete Relief for an Abnormal Course Condition could also be in a Penalty Area.  

[LICC]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

Still not acceptable.  I like the way it is, it makes much more sense, and its easier to enforce.  If the result of the drop is Unplayable, but still in the Relief Area, the player can use Rule 19 relief.

You're not understanding this.  First, if you have cart path interference, and your ball is in a Penalty Area, you don't get relief from the cart path. 

But assuming you get your way, and a Relief Area can extend into a Penalty Area, consistency would require that to be the case for all types of relief.  And the Nearest Point of Complete Relief for an Abnormal Course Condition could also be in a Penalty Area.  

You are not giving a reason why it is not acceptable. You may like the simplicity of the existing rule, but that doesn't make the other way "not acceptable."

I'm not fathoming your cart path example. Maybe because I don't think I've ever seen a cart path in a PA. You usually don't see cart paths on the edges of ponds. But imagining it, and the red line is drawn away from the cart path, it seems more fair to me to drop the ball in the PA if that is where the distance from the Nearest Point puts you.

[RickyBobby_PR]

24 minutes ago, LICC said:

In my scenario, the player wouldn't be allowed to just choose. He would have to first determine the ball to be unplayable. As with every rule of golf, a player has to abide by Rule 1 in the Rules of Golf- act with integrity and be honest in all aspects of play.

You can’t declare a ball unplayable in a penalty area under the current rules so that’s not an option.

[LICC]

8 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

You can’t declare a ball unplayable in a penalty area under the current rules so that’s not an option.

Correct. We are discussing how the rule would work if it were revised.

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, LICC said:

You are not giving a reason why it is not acceptable. You may like the simplicity of the existing rule, but that doesn't make the other way "not acceptable."

IT is simply not acceptable to allow the player to choose.  Even assuming every player is honorable, there will be differences of perception as to playability of a ball.  The rule is better as it is.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

Correct. We are discussing how the rule would work if it were revised.

You would have to change the penalty area rule as well, not to mention possibly  other rules so it’s not just a simple rule change for a ball that roles intro a penalty area. But then again that’s usually the case with most of your rules suggestions 

[LICC]

28 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

You would have to change the penalty area rule as well, not to mention possibly  other rules so it’s not just a simple rule change for a ball that roles intro a penalty area. But then again that’s usually the case with most of your rules suggestions 

It's an easy change. Not very complicated.

[TR1PTIK]

Not to take the conversation in a different direction from where it is currently, but I'm listening to the NLU recap and found it interesting how they hit on the timing aspect of the Cam ruling. Of particular note is how it impacts the gambling side of things. Regardless of what you think about betting on sports, the way this ruling transpired completely threw a wrench in bets that were already placed. To complicate things further, the PGA Tour has leaned into sports betting and fantasy leagues which is why this is a problem they should probably work to resolve sooner than later.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Not to take the conversation in a different direction from where it is currently, but I'm listening to the NLU recap and found it interesting how they hit on the timing aspect of the Cam ruling. Of particular note is how it impacts the gambling side of things. Regardless of what you think about betting on sports, the way this ruling transpired completely threw a wrench in bets that were already placed. To complicate things further, the PGA Tour has leaned into sports betting and fantasy leagues which is why this is a problem they should probably work to resolve sooner than later.

This was also mentioned in a different thread here in MGS earlier.  For sure this upset some bettors, but if the penalty had not been added (as required by the rules) and Smith had won by a stroke a different set of bettors would have pretty legit complaints.  As I understand it, the Tour does have officials watching the real time video, and this was missed at the time.  It was only during a review later in the evening that it was noticed.  The Tour Rules Officials needed to talk to Cam, and only after that discussion were they certain that he had broken the Rule.  I'm sure they'd prefer to catch it before the card is turned in, but that's not always possible in an imperfect world.  I'm not sure what a "resolution" would look like, the Rules basically require the penalty to be added if it comes to light before the competition is closed.

[TR1PTIK]

15 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

This was also mentioned in a different thread here in MGS earlier.  For sure this upset some bettors, but if the penalty had not been added (as required by the rules) and Smith had won by a stroke a different set of bettors would have pretty legit complaints.  As I understand it, the Tour does have officials watching the real time video, and this was missed at the time.  It was only during a review later in the evening that it was noticed.  The Tour Rules Officials needed to talk to Cam, and only after that discussion were they certain that he had broken the Rule.  I'm sure they'd prefer to catch it before the card is turned in, but that's not always possible in an imperfect world.  I'm not sure what a "resolution" would look like, the Rules basically require the penalty to be added if it comes to light before the competition is closed.

Great response and well stated.

[Mike Z]

Not sure I really care about the betting side of it.  Kind of sick of betting running the show in a lot of sport.  (end rant) If you're betting then you're an adult and you should be aware of exactly what you are betting on.  And in the case of golf, that means that situations like this can and will happen.  Aside from some possible bad PR I don't see the way this played out as an issue.

As for the Cam situation, its his and his caddie's job to know the rules and apply them correctly - whether or not they are always sensible or fair.  If I still have to play out of a divot in the middle of the fairway, then taking complete relief doesn't seem like a big issue to me. 

 

Side note:  have not been on here a lot for a few years.  Life/work changes took up a lot of my online and golf time.  But from what I remember there wasnt the kind of flaming going on then as there seems to be in this thread.    One of the things that made MGS unique.  Kind of disappointing to see it now.

[TR1PTIK]

15 hours ago, Mike Z said:

Side note:  have not been on here a lot for a few years.  Life/work changes took up a lot of my online and golf time.  But from what I remember there wasnt the kind of flaming going on then as there seems to be in this thread.    One of the things that made MGS unique.  Kind of disappointing to see it now.

You know what? You're absolutely right. Though you are certainly missing context, and I don't think this thread is representative of the forum as a whole it is nonetheless important for all members to consider how various discussions might appear to first time guests and/or returning members.

To that end, all apologies to @LICC for my condescending remarks. It is not that I harbor any animosity toward you personally, but we have seen these types of threads spiral in the past. My remarks were a rather weak attempt to shut things down before that happened again. I'm sorry.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

You know what? You're absolutely right. Though you are certainly missing context, and I don't think this thread is representative of the forum as a whole it is nonetheless important for all members to consider how various discussions might appear to first time guests and/or returning members.

To that end, all apologies to @LICC for my condescending remarks. It is not that I harbor any animosity toward you personally, but we have seen these types of threads spiral in the past. My remarks were a rather weak attempt to shut things down before that happened again. I'm sorry.

I appreciate the apology. Other than the barbs, I've enjoyed the discussion here with you and others. 

[MyWifesSwingCoach]

17 hours ago, Mike Z said:

Not sure I really care about the betting side of it.  Kind of sick of betting running the show in a lot of sport.  (end rant) If you're betting then you're an adult and you should be aware of exactly what you are betting on.  And in the case of golf, that means that situations like this can and will happen.  Aside from some possible bad PR I don't see the way this played out as an issue.

As for the Cam situation, its his and his caddie's job to know the rules and apply them correctly - whether or not they are always sensible or fair.  If I still have to play out of a divot in the middle of the fairway, then taking complete relief doesn't seem like a big issue to me. 

 

Side note:  have not been on here a lot for a few years.  Life/work changes took up a lot of my online and golf time.  But from what I remember there wasnt the kind of flaming going on then as there seems to be in this thread.    One of the things that made MGS unique.  Kind of disappointing to see it now.

Hey Mike, as a fellow Michigander I am glad to have you back on. Whereabouts are you from? and I will say as only being on this site for a couple years now, I agree with @TR1PTIK that this is not representative of the site.

Occasionally some people/threads get snippy/snarky/etc and my MO is to typically (obligatory not perfect here lol) not add to it. But on the whole the community of patrons of this site still stand out to me in the wonderfully terrible thing that is the internet.

 

P.S. I hope you enjoy your time back at MGS

[Mike Z]

Thanks!  I am from Livonia.  Thanks to both for the comments on the board.  I hope my comments didn't come across the wrong way, I was just very surprised to see it in one of the first few threads I opened.  I guess all I can say is "carry on, don't mind me", LOL

[MyWifesSwingCoach]

6 minutes ago, Mike Z said:

Thanks!  I am from Livonia.  Thanks to both for the comments on the board.  I hope my comments didn't come across the wrong way, I was just very surprised to see it in one of the first few threads I opened.  I guess all I can say is "carry on, don't mind me", LOL

Oh nice, I'm in Southgate so not far at all. If you're ever up for a round, don't hesitate to reach out. 

And your comments didn't come across wrong on my end, just some words of encouragement that the site is still a pretty great place lol

[TR1PTIK]

34 minutes ago, Mike Z said:

I hope my comments didn't come across the wrong way

Not at all. It was a great reminder that there are other people reading beyond those actively engaged in a discussion. More importantly, it was a reminder of why I came to enjoy the MGS Forums so much as well. I'd hate to see it turn into what some others have, and I'd hate even more to be an instrumental part of that.