Casual Water

[Cgkdisc]

Part of the problem is the term "casual water" in the first place. Originally, casual water was primarily water that was not normally in depressions or creek beds on the course except in heavy rain. Now, the rule has changed where all water bodies are treated with the "casual relief" rule unless it's specified as OB by the designer or TD. If you simply remove the word "casual" from the rule and the perception it's only there occasionally, and call every body of water, whether permanent or temporary, a "water hazard" instead, then it might make more sense following the current rules.

Landing in any water hazard is less than an ideal shot even if it's temporary. Potential rewording under the current rule:
"If the water hazard is not defined as an OB area, the player takes free relief up to 5m back on the line of play to the edge of the water hazard unless the TD has granted free relief going farther back as needed or has defined an optional drop zone for the hazard. See OB rule if water hazard is in a marked OB area."

Hopefully this recasting of the same rule wording will make it seem appropriate for those engineers, doctors and lawyers that beleive otherwise.

 

[bradharris]

Your answers are credible.
1) Suppose you were given an engineering spec which was black-and-white but flawed. You would not submit a design and ignore the flaw, that would be incorrect. Even seemingly black-and-white things must be viewed as to what the intent is.
2) It requires advanced surveying tools to prove that 3 points are indeed colinear. There is no expectation that players will carry advanced surveying tools. It cannot be determined if you are on a direct line with the basket if the basket cannot be seen. Even when it can be seen one player can say he is on a straight line with it and another can say no you are 18 inches off and that is giving you an advantage. Since a direct line is impractical and unenforceable it cannot be used. A rule, to be a rule, must be both practical and enforceable. The rule which says "no closer to" meets these criteria. We can expect that reasonable men when they know where the basket is even if they cannot see it can determine if they are moving closer to it or not.
3) Exactly. The Pythagorean difference in distance is small enough to not be a consideration. This applies whether the lie is relocated a short distance vertically or laterally.
4) This relies on the fairness doctrine and common sense about the intent of the game, rules, and penalties. If you believe it is correct to tell someone to go back 2 holes and 300 feet in a straight line versus go to that spot which is nearest and no closer to the pin and is 2 feet away then I will not convince you otherwise.
5) I would be happy if you could show me where a lateral relocation is expressly addressed, I haven't found it. The best I have found says closest within 2 meters, no closer to the hole. That includes lateral. We have already discussed that requiring a colinear relocation is both impractical and unenforceable and thus by definition cannot be a rule of play.

1. I'm a software engineer. If I get SW requirements from a systems engineer that seem to contradict their intent, I work to rewrite the requirements. I never have the option to sway from the requirements as written though.
2. It's enforceable with reasonable judgement. Obviously you can't be 100% certain that you are on the exact line of play. But to say it's a bad rule because you can't eyeball a line is ridiculous.
3. Right, not even worth discussing.
4. This has already been addressed. You're not required to take a lie that far away, it's one of your three options. Lateral relief is not one of those options.
5. It's a positive statement rather than a negative one. The rule says you can only relocate your lie on the line of play. Any kind of lateral relief takes you off that lie.

 

[Cgkdisc]

BTW, the original casual relief rule did allow sideways relief because it was "logical" at the time. However, the Rules Committee felt players were getting too much leeway going up to 5m sideways in either direction because they could sometimes completely avoid the vertical hazards (trees) that were on their line of play. That's the "logic" behind the current casual relief rule going back on the LOP.

 

[HawaiiJack]

BTW, the original casual relief rule did allow sideways relief because it was "logical" at the time. However, the Rules Committee felt players were getting too much leeway going up to 5m sideways in either direction because they could sometimes completely avoid the vertical hazards (trees) that were on their line of play. That's the "logic" behind the current casual relief rule going back on the LOP.

Now we're getting somewhere. 5 metres is perhaps too great a distance. But the current wording I see says you have to go to the nearest point, you can't just take the maximum distance. Getting away from most water and debris should take a couple steps yes? Not a full 5 metres. Moving a step or two is not going to take many trees out of play. Now there may be a time when a player gets an unintended benefit because of water or debris. But isn't that better seen as the rub of the green rather than something nefarious?

 

[iacas]

BTW, the original casual relief rule did allow sideways relief because it was "logical" at the time. However, the Rules Committee felt players were getting too much leeway going up to 5m sideways in either direction because they could sometimes completely avoid the vertical hazards (trees) that were on their line of play. That's the "logic" behind the current casual relief rule going back on the LOP.

As you know golf simply says within a clublength of the nearest point of relief (no closer to the hole). Sometimes that gets a player out from behind a tree. Sometimes it puts him in a worse spot (so he has to decide if he even wants to take relief).

The rules can hurt you or help you. Oftentimes they help.

Why do you think the committee only wants relief back on the line and not laterally?

 

[JoakimBL]

Why do you think the committee only wants relief back on the line and not laterally?

Because that is how the rule is literally written? Why is this so dificult to understand? We can have a discussion about whether the rule is good or bad, but not really about how to interpret the current rule. It is clear as day, unless of course you are a group of doctors, lawyers and engineers apperently, or just han't bothered reading the rule book

 

[HawaiiJack]

Because that is how the rule is literally written? Why is this so dificult to understand? We can have a discussion about whether the rule is good or bad, but not really about how to interpret the current rule. It is clear as day, unless of course you are a group of doctors, lawyers and engineers apperently, or just han't bothered reading the rule book

The problem is coming because you are overlooking a basic principle of interpreting and applying rules and laws. When a rule is impractical, unenforceable, and leads to absurdities it must be disregarded. Do this as narrowly as possible. Apply what remains as possible.

Changing the wording of a water hazard might work but I suspect if the problem of "line of play" isn't removed it will just recur in another context. Changing to direction of play might be possible. You always know the general direction of advance to the vicinity of the basket though frequently the precise basket location is unknown. Eventually you're going to have to allow that some lateral deviation is permitted on a relocation of the lie.

Until such rewording or reworking you are free to move to the nearest lie, no closer. Some might object this gives a get-out-of-jail-free card. Oh well. When a rule is poorly written shame on the man who wrote it, not the men who know how to interpret and apply rules and laws. When you go before a judge if you show the law is unenforceable, etc the judge will not hold any trespass against that law as valid. If you are in a discussion of this situation with your playing partners or a tourney director you can refer to the points made here and if they are honorable they will accept them.

 

[bradharris]

The problem is coming because you are overlooking a basic principle of interpreting and applying rules and laws. When a rule is impractical, unenforceable, and leads to absurdities it must be disregarded. Do this as narrowly as possible. Apply what remains as possible.

Changing the wording of a water hazard might work but I suspect if the problem of "line of play" isn't removed it will just recur in another context. Changing to direction of play might be possible. You always know the general direction of advance to the vicinity of the basket though frequently the precise basket location is unknown. Eventually you're going to have to allow that some lateral deviation is permitted on a relocation of the lie.

Until such rewording or reworking you are free to move to the nearest lie, no closer. Some might object this gives a get-out-of-jail-free card. Oh well. When a rule is poorly written shame on the man who wrote it, not the men who know how to interpret and apply rules and laws. When you go before a judge if you show the law is unenforceable, etc the judge will not hold any trespass against that law as valid. If you are in a discussion of this situation with your playing partners or a tourney director you can refer to the points made here and if they are honorable they will accept them.

This rule is not unenforceable, impractical, or absurd. The line of play is very tangible and easy to estimate in the best judgement of the group.

 

[Cgkdisc]

HawaiiJack hasn't made the case for absurdities with the current rule, simply that the choices for lie relocation (and possible penalty) aren't as broad ranging and desirable as some independent observers might prefer. Too bad.

 

[Smigles]

Few things :

1 : it's not given that moving back on the line of play is always bad and that moving sideways is always a advantage. We can come up with just as many cases where it is the other way around and the moving sideways brings you in a disadvantage.

2 : Even if you wanna go sideways, the question remains : sideways to what ? Rectangular to the line of play ? There we have the line if play again...

3 : The only way to get rid of that line of play discussino is to say you can relocate anywhere you want within 5 foot. But then why 5 foot ? Why not 10 ? or 100 ?


5 : We probably better keep the rules as they are and try to handle them reasonably. Works with most reasonable people, and I hope that there is a majority of them in each fligth ^^

 

[Steve West]

When a rule is impractical, unenforceable, and leads to absurdities it must be disregarded.

Feel free to ignore it that rule. Stand in the water and throw.

There isn't any other rule that allows you to move sideways, though.

C'mon people, this guy isn't serious. I just hope he's enjoying all the attention, because that's the only good that will come from this thread.

Reminds me of a child who has found out that yelling during his parent's dinner parties gets a reaction.

 

[iacas]

Because that is how the rule is literally written?

You either confused me with the guy who seems to be "running" this thread, or didn't really read what I wrote.

I know what the rule says. I asked why (people) thought the committee wrote it that way. What was their reasoning? Why didn't they allow lateral relief from casual water (as seen in golf - "nearest point of relief")?

It wasn't precisely the topic but it was awfully close.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Relief from casual water is on the line of play in ball golf. It's as far back as you'd like to go, though. (Last rule book I read)

 

[Dan Ensor]

Relief from casual water is on the line of play in ball golf. It's as far back as you'd like to go, though. (Last rule book I read)

Not line of play; no closer to the hole ... whoops. Still though, they don't make you play from casual water. If I hurt myself playing from casual water, pdga might not want to have made me play from that unsafe lie.

 

[mashnut]

Not line of play; no closer to the hole ... whoops. Still though, they don't make you play from casual water. If I hurt myself playing from casual water, pdga might not want to have made me play from that unsafe lie.

"Yes your honor, I could have gone back to a safe point but I would have had to take an extra stroke, so the PDGA is clearly at fault for my injury"

Good luck with that...

 

[grodney]

There isn't any other rule that allows you to move sideways, though.

Point of order:
Not just sideways, but even closer to the hole: Re-positioning an in-bounds lie up to 1m from an OB line. 802.03D.

"
If the position of the thrown disc is
in-bounds but within one meter of an
out-of-bounds line, the lie may be marked
by placing a mini marker disc on the playing
surface at any point on a one-meter line that
extends perpendicularly from the nearest
point on the out-of-bounds line and passes
through the center of the thrown disc, even if
the direction takes the lie closer to the target.
For the purpose of marking the lie, the
out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane.
"

 

[Steve West]

Point of order:
Not just sideways, but even closer to the hole: Re-positioning an in-bounds lie up to 1m from an OB line. 802.03D.

"
If the position of the thrown disc is
in-bounds but within one meter of an
out-of-bounds line, the lie may be marked
by placing a mini marker disc on the playing
surface at any point on a one-meter line that
extends perpendicularly from the nearest
point on the out-of-bounds line and passes
through the center of the thrown disc, even if
the direction takes the lie closer to the target.
For the purpose of marking the lie, the
out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane.
"

Good point. I should have added "for relief from casual water". Thanks.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are two casual water issues that are troublesome. At our MN Majestic A-tier, we had soaking rain every night but fortunately not during play. The BRP course has lots of flat sod areas that hold casual water from 1"-3" deep for several days and the areas may be bigger than 5 meters. Should a player be allowed to take relief up to 5m even though it's apparent they cannot go back far enough to get out of the standing water? Or is there an unwritten "rule" that if the ground is generally covered with water in many spots after rainfall, that casual water relief is suspended? Does it matter how deep the water might be in a casual area?

The other concern is when a casual water area straddles an OB line and the player cannot take line of play relief without going across the OB line. Does the player have to just suck it up and play from the water or take the 1-throw penalty for an Optional Rethrow? I think my complaint might be with the TD for not marking a drop zone for that casual area.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Ironically, there are a several formalities when it comes to the topic of casual water.

 

[JC17393]

There are two casual water issues that are troublesome. At our MN Majestic A-tier, we had soaking rain every night but fortunately not during play. The BRP course has lots of flat sod areas that hold casual water from 1"-3" deep for several days and the areas may be bigger than 5 meters. Should a player be allowed to take relief up to 5m even though it's apparent they cannot go back far enough to get out of the standing water? Or is there an unwritten "rule" that if the ground is generally covered with water in many spots after rainfall, that casual water relief is suspended? Does it matter how deep the water might be in a casual area?

Funny thing about the rule book...there's actually a written rule covering such situations....

803.01 Obstacles and Relief
B. ...If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the target, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director).​

The other concern is when a casual water area straddles an OB line and the player cannot take line of play relief without going across the OB line. Does the player have to just suck it up and play from the water or take the 1-throw penalty for an Optional Rethrow? I think my complaint might be with the TD for not marking a drop zone for that casual area.

Bingo.


The rule book can't be written to cover every single little possible situation. That is where a diligent and attentive TD steps in and fills the gaps for which the rule book doesn't contain a default solution. If it rains and a whole lot of water appears on the course in places where there is normally no water, the TD has the authority to adjust the rules or implement alternatives to solve any potential problems.

And if you're playing casually and a situation pops up, do whatever you and your mates feel is fair. Make your own drop zones, take your own forms of relief, whatever.

The pretzel twisting people like to try to do to "test" or push the rules is always amusing, but often wholly unnecessary.