Here are some rules issues brought up at the Majestic NT.
1) Moving the car during the Final 9. The PGA has special rules that supercede the regular USGA golf rules specifically for tournaments. It was apparent to Chappy, myself and others that we need to have similar options available to TDs and officials for events, especially when Final 9s that sometimes include safari holes are involved. For example, the PGA has drop zones marked where players play from if their shot goes in to the stands or the tents.

It just so happens that the Competition Committee had already planned to meet tonight so this can be addressed. I've proposed the following wording for next year's Comp Manual:

The TD has the discretion to move or remove any obstacles to play that interfere with the course layout or equipment as intended for play even after the round starts. Care should be taken to make sure that these adjustments will not impact play where some groups in a division will have to deal with the obstacle(s) and others will not. This discretion also extends to defining special relief from brush piles and large casual water areas that may have appeared from a storm and were not discovered before start of play. In addition, signage may be corrected that was found to be incorrect compared with the official course guide for the event.

Another issue that came up was the program conflicting with the wording on the tee signs in terms of OB rules or a mando on a hole. The TD said the program was the "bible" for making calls. Does that mean the signs shouldn't matter? What would be sufficient notice to players of the problem? Not saying I have the answer but it seems like something the Competition Manual should provide to TDs in terms of priorities for making decisions when conflicts arise. Fortunately the issue was caught before players in the same division played a hole one way and the remainder played it another way.

This one is just a pet peeve with regard to marking OB or in this case, not marking it. Please use the most precise method available for marking OBs to avoid controversy. A grass/cement boundary is OK and fences and string. Painted lines are at least a little better than water/grass boundaries. We had an incident where a paint line was sprayed on grass that was maybe 5" high. A disc came in low from the OB side and ended up in a position where the player claimed (correctly) that the painted grass was pushed down toward IB and even though there was a clear half inch of paint between the disc and unpainted IB grass, the group gave the player the benefit of the doubt that had the painted line not been pushed down and forward, the disc would have touched IB.

Here are some rules issues brought up at the Majestic NT.
1) Moving the car during the Final 9. The PGA has special rules that supercede the regular USGA golf rules specifically for tournaments. It was apparent to Chappy, myself and others that we need to have similar options available to TDs and officials for events, especially when Final 9s that sometimes include safari holes are involved. For example, the PGA has drop zones marked where players play from if their shot goes in to the stands or the tents.

It just so happens that the Competition Committee had already planned to meet tonight so this can be addressed. I've proposed the following wording for next year's Comp Manual:

The TD has the discretion to move or remove any obstacles to play that interfere with the course layout or equipment as intended for play even after the round starts. Care should be taken to make sure that these adjustments will not impact play where some groups in a division will have to deal with the obstacle(s) and others will not. This discretion also extends to defining special relief from brush piles and large casual water areas that may have appeared from a storm and were not discovered before start of play. In addition, signage may be corrected that was found to be incorrect compared with the official course guide for the event.



It would be redundant. The TD already has this recourse under special conditions rule 804.01. The Comp could of course, mention this.

Chap

I hope all TDs hear about this one. It has to do with buildings that are closed and a disc can't enter. Please identify the building as OB if your disc goes inside even if that's not possible. This way, players will get 1m relief from the building including discs that land on the roof when the 2m rule is not in effect.

This weekend there was a building that players could easily hyzer out and land near where the inside was not called OB. Had a player's disc landed within a few inches of the building, the player would either have to use the solid object relief rule and go to the other side of the building on the line of play to get enough room to take a stance. Or, call an unplayable and throw from their original lie (probably the tee) and get a 1-throw penalty. My guess is that several of you have encountered this building situation on some courses and probably just moved out just enough from the building thinking you got relief even though inside the building was not called OB.

It's important to call only the inside of the building OB. Otherwise, just calling the building OB would mean the roof is also OB at least the part over the inside which would result in an OB penalty for discs on that part of the roof. That's OK but that may not have been the intent of the TD for those who don't want 2-meter type penalties.

It would be redundant. The TD already has this recourse under special conditions rule 804.01. The Comp could of course, mention this.


Sadly no Chap. If you read 804.01 the TD has to define all of those special conditions prior to the event. Making calls like that during the round is not indicated as allowed. That's what needs to be changed.

It would be redundant. The TD already has this recourse under special conditions rule 804.01. The Comp could of course, mention this.


Sadly no Chap. If you read 804.01 the TD has to define all of those special conditions prior to the event. Making calls like that during the round is not indicated as allowed. That's what needs to be changed.



Those sorts of situations SHOULD be defined before the event. You are correct, the TD should have the latitude to do what's fair in case he didn't spell it out before hand. Of course, 803.01F seems to grant the director that power.

Chap

It's important to call only the inside of the building OB. Otherwise, just calling the building OB would mean the roof is also OB at least the part over the inside which would result in an OB penalty for discs on that part of the roof. That's OK but that may not have been the intent of the TD for those who don't want 2-meter type penalties.



OB is not a 3-dimensional space. It is a 2 dimensional area. The only way the roof could be ok when the inside was OB, would be if you declared the roof a playing surface. In that case, there is no relief, you must play it from the roof. If you don't go with stacked playing surfaces and they land on the roof, how can you declare the roof IB, but allow them to mark a meter from the building on the ground. It just doesn't work within the confines of the current rule set.

An additional type of OB that allows for relocation without penalty would be a great addition to the rules and would make the building scenario much more tidy. Otherwise "Don't throw there" :D

The TD can use 804.01 for special conditions to allow the roof to be inbounds and players take relief on the playing surface 1m from the building. No problem. No penalty.

An example that has occurred before is picnic tables that are sturdy enough to walk on. TDs can allow players to play from the tabletop as a playing surface OR play from the ground below it which would be a special condition specified by the TD to play from an IB surface under another one.

Anytime I, as a TD, don't want to follow a PDGA rule, I'll just declare a special condition then. Beer is now a special condition at Willow Brook. If you get caught with a beer during the round, the beer holder in your cart is the special drop zone where you can leave your beer between sips without a penalty. 804.01.

Anytime I, as a TD, don't want to follow a PDGA rule, I'll just declare a special condition then. Beer is now a special condition at Willow Brook. If you get caught with a beer during the round, the beer holder in your cart is the special drop zone where you can leave your beer between sips without a penalty. 804.01.



:D

It would be simpler to simply declare the exterior walls themselves OB, but the inside IB. Then you use the solid obstacle rule and the OB rule to arrive at the effective relief you desire. No special conditions needed.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a building on the golf course. Find out who put that thing there and have them remove it so it's no longer an issue.

Presuming the roof is a playing surface, could the TD allow players to choose to play from the roof consistent with the Q & A on multiple playing surfaces or to take casual relief per 803.05 C without relying on special conditions provided relief was stipulated before play?

If there is any chance of the disc landing under, in, or on the building, relief may be a fairer way to treat buildings like this. The designation would need to be before the event which underscores the valuable point made by Chuck and John to carefully consider and identify these issues ahead of time. Winthrop Gold #2 has such a building. Based on this discussion, I am going to review the USDGC ground rules to see if our treatment is as fair and clear as possible.

Take care,
Harold

Harold, I think the problem that comes up is the size of the building. It's not too much trouble to play from behind a small shack or maintenance shed type building that's not very tall. The problem with the building this weekend was its size - probably 60 ft x 50ft and with a 15-20 ft high peaked roof. We need to figure out an appropriate mechanism that allows 1m relief going toward the basket if necessary. Relief from OB seems like the only option other than perhaps using a special condition providing a drop zone at the corner of the building if you can't take a stance.

I still don't see why forward relief is required. If the disc is leaning on the building and the player cannot take a stance, then they have to throw from behind it. It's really no different than a big old growth tree or any other obstacle. Maybe it's overly punitive, but so is the lost disc rule (IMHO). Maybe I'll start declaring inside large tree trunks OB. :p

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a building on the golf course. Find out who put that thing there and have them remove it so it's no longer an issue.



I will assume this is sarcasm.

It seems logical to have the entire building OB. You will take a penalty stroke if you land on, in or under the restroom, picnic shelter, ski lodge, fish cleaning station, BBQ pit, lift shack, maintenance shed, etc, etc. Why would you not have the roof OB? Is that so I can climb up there and throw my disc from the roof?

I still don't see why forward relief is required. If the disc is leaning on the building and the player cannot take a stance, then they have to throw from behind it.


Size and position matters. In the case of the large building, there was no place to play from on the other side of the building (woods) and from some solid relief angles, the player would end up on the OB parking lot.

Yes Suzette, making the whole building OB including the roof would probably be better for larger buildings. For smaller buildings, sheds and shacks, having the roof OB is like a special 2m penalty area when every other suspended lie doesn't get penalized if 2m rule not in effect. If we had a way to make it so you got relief from the side of the small building and not have its roof OB, I think that would be a preferred option for some TDs.

Restroom on Hole 2 is OB. However, the roof and inside are not OB. Players landing in or on the restroom may play their disc where it lies.



If a player lands in a restroom, I think it would be a perfect time for relief. Just make sure the lid is down when you are done. :o

Too... many... good... lines... to.... follow... this...
Resist... resist...

I will assume this is sarcasm.



To a certain degree, yes it is. On the other hand, it seems like a design decision to involve play that close to a building has caused the problem at hand. If the building was not so close to the golfing, then the questions on how much of the building should be OB, etc., would all be moot.

I can't think of any courses I play that have such a dilemma, with the exception perhaps of Hole #9 Sunnyside at The Grange.

Hey Chuck,

I guess my question would be: Doesn't the current version of 803.05 C (2) allow the TD to designate any size building as casual and to announce additional relief, such as 1 meter around the perimeter, drop zone in front corner, or whatever?

Take care,
Harold

I'm thinking marking a no penalty drop zone near the corner farther from the basket might be the most appropriate way to handle it so the player doesn't have to go around behind a big building but also doesn't get to move closer to the basket if they can't take a stance. The unfortunate thing is that there's no automatic way under the current rules to get decent relief if the TD doesn't provide for the building scenario. Perhaps something specific for relief around enclosed buildings should get written into the next rules update even if the TD doesn't specify a structure was OB?

My question would be: "Since we allow up to 1m repositioning of the lie toward the hole even when an IB shot is too close to OB, why would it be such a big deal to allow up to 1m from any wall, fence or object toward the hole where the player can't take stance according to the rules?" Seems like that would make everything more consistent and resolve this issue. I could even see changing the amount of relief to a half meter so the player maybe has to take a less than ideal stance and not get a totally free ride because they landed close to something.

The question on 803.05 C (2) hinges on what is meant by greater relief? Does it only allow the TD to increase the 5m limit or does it give the TD more latitude to declare a drop zone or other alternate relief.

Although a drop zone was supposed have been an option for casual relief, it didn't make this rulebook. So, relief to a drop zone for being too close to a building would have to fall under 804.01 Special Conditions even though that's a stretch.

Another issue that came up was the program conflicting with the wording on the tee signs in terms of OB rules or a mando on a hole. The TD said the program was the "bible" for making calls. Does that mean the signs shouldn't matter? What would be sufficient notice to players of the problem? Not saying I have the answer but it seems like something the Competition Manual should provide to TDs in terms of priorities for making decisions when conflicts arise. Fortunately the issue was caught before players in the same division played a hole one way and the remainder played it another way.



if the td stated in the player's meeting that the program was "the bible" then i don't see what the problem is- play it by the program. am i missing something else here?

The "missing" part is that the TD tried to correct the mando issue by trying to host a last minute player meeting 20 minutes before tee-off when none was planned and many players had headed to their holes. The hole has a big mando sign on it but wasn't mentioned in the bible. The question would be, "Is the TD trying to correct things, after stating the printed item is the bible, a waste of time at that point?" Should the rule be that once the round has started, if something in the printed material and signage don't match, don't make the effort to fix it and live with what the printed guide says?

Mike,

As a TD, I have always interpreted that to mean any type of greater relief (forward, sideways, drop zone, etc), not necessarily limited to simply further back on the line of play.

As a TD, I have always interpreted that to mean any type of greater relief (forward, sideways, drop zone, etc), not necessarily limited to simply further back on the line of play.


I agree Harold. The casual relief option just didn't make it into the Drop Zone 800 definition.

The real question is whether a permanent structure should be classified as a casual obstacle. I think that it is more appropriate to handle it as a special condition under 804.01.

Another advantage is that 804.01 already has provisions for more creative relief than is normal under 803.05. I also see a good argument for moving 804.01 under the 803.05 umbrella of obstacle rules and thereby giving course designers access to the provisions of the rule outside of tournament play.

Good point Chuck. The Drop Zone's definition, i.e. like a teeing area, may not make it the most appropriate for casual relief anyway. So to be technically correct, I would say that 803.05 C allows the TD to provide greater relief, including directing the player to an area or spot, but that area or spot should not be termed a drop zone.

Take care,
Harold

The "missing" part is that the TD tried to correct the mando issue by trying to host a last minute player meeting 20 minutes before tee-off when none was planned and many players had headed to their holes. The hole has a big mando sign on it but wasn't mentioned in the bible. The question would be, "Is the TD trying to correct things, after stating the printed item is the bible, a waste of time at that point?" Should the rule be that once the round has started, if something in the printed material and signage don't match, don't make the effort to fix it and live with what the printed guide says?



i don't know that it needs to be accounted for in the rules, seems like td error to me. i would find it acceptable to either put a volunteer on the hole to insure that EVERY group knows about the change or live with what is printed in the program.

Maybe for now. But I'm not sure there's a reason it can't be a drop zone in future rule books.

i don't know that it needs to be accounted for in the rules, seems like td error to me.


I'm not saying it should be in the rules but in TD/Marshal guidelines to provide advice when things like this are discovered.

Another issue that came up was the program conflicting with the wording on the tee signs in terms of OB rules or a mando on a hole. The TD said the program was the "bible" for making calls. Does that mean the signs shouldn't matter? What would be sufficient notice to players of the problem? Not saying I have the answer but it seems like something the Competition Manual should provide to TDs in terms of priorities for making decisions when conflicts arise. Fortunately the issue was caught before players in the same division played a hole one way and the remainder played it another way.



Did the TD make the "bible" statement in the player's meeting? If so, there you are.

Sort of relevant: At BG Ams, the guide did not say the lake was OB at Griffin, but the signs did, so I think people that went in the lake should have re-teed or threw from the lake. I didn't realize this until after the tournament (luckily I didn't go in /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif). I am pretty sure everyone played it OB (who checks the guide to see if a lake is OB?).

good question/point... i've heard it said that if the TD hands out a course specific OB/rule sheet and says to play it like the sheet says that only those OBs/mandos/etc. should be used even if the course is marked differently.

i've seen some tournies where a TD could get into trouble with this by not having everything marked well on the sheet though (and have see where the course was marked differently and some played as the sheet said and some as the course was marked).

an example is the sheet shows no OB for a hole and the player throws a crazy shot that somehow goes into a road (lets assume it is so bad/crazy that the TD didnt think someone could throw there) then they should be in bounds and play it from the road. Even if that same road is OB on a different hole.

would anyone else read it this way? of course the easy thing to do is have 'all roads are OB' on the top of that sheet.

so in the instance at bowling green above I would be fine if someone on my card threw in the lake and either got a stance behind the disc or played it as casual. Its not their fault if the TD didnt have it marked correctly and/or if the people playing didnt read/have the guide right? (and yes... a provisional is always the safe bet)

In this case, it was usually better for the player if it was OB and not casual, because there was no stance available.