USDGC "Hazard" Rules - Meter Relief Allowed if "Safe"?

[Steve West]

I wish we wouldn't use a ball golf term in a way that is inconsistent with how ball golf uses the term. If we can make up a new kind of area, we should be able to come up with a new name for it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I wish we wouldn't use a ball golf term in a way that is inconsistent with how ball golf uses the term. If we can make up a new kind of area, we should be able to come up with a new name for it.

It's a Penalty Zone which could be shortened for conversation to P-Zone or Penzo (like Mando).

 

[teemkey]

Why is this so hard to grasp for people? The rule book can't really provide the answer here since there is no such thing as a "hazard area" in the PDGA Rules of Play. Cite all the rules you want, but until hazard areas are actually covered by the rule book, the answer really can only come from the TD/designer who created the hazard area ground rule in the first place.

And the question at hand isn't whether or not the casual relief warrants a penalty. It's whether or not moving a lie into (not within) a hazard area warrants a penalty.

Is it only the act of landing in the hazard that invokes the penalty (as Chuck's idea of dealing with the area suggests) or is it the act of having to throw out of the hazard that invokes the penalty (which warrants the question of relief away from the hazard instead of into it)?

Absent a TD's specific instructions (which currently are, in fact, absent), established rules must be applied to an undefined situation. Not sure why you have a problem with speculation on how that process will unfold.

 

[JC17393]

Absent a TD's specific instructions (which currently are, in fact, absent), established rules must be applied to an undefined situation. Not sure why you have a problem with speculation on how that process will unfold.

I don't have a problem with speculation. I really only have a problem with insisting that "the rule book is clear on this" when it is a situation created outside the rules of play and is not covered by the existing rules.

Were I to encounter the situation in question on the course, the very first thing I'd do is try to find the TD to clarify. Absent that, I'd be playing provisionally from two or three different lies due to the multiple possible rulings that could result from applying a logical extension of the closest existing rule(s) (a.k.a. 801.01A). And even then, it is possible that none of those logical extensions are the correct answer.

 

[Steve West]

It's a Penalty Zone which could be shortened for conversation to P-Zone or Penzo (like Mando).

I've seen P-zones all over most courses. That's something else entirely. :gross:

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Yeah, but those P-zones ever come into play, someone's definitely doing something wrong.

 

[JC17393]

Too bad Pizza Hut discontinued them, because that seems like a ripe sponsorship opportunity...

 

[Cgkdisc]

I think you could get a big oil sponsorship calling it Penzo, especially if located in the Quaker State.

 

[Steve West]

Speaking of big, they could be called Penal areas.

 

[kerplunk]

JC, I understand that you will not be satisfied until this is addressed explicitly, but I think there is solid logical reasoning that concludes that it is legal to have a supporting point in the hazard area when you throw, and that relocating the lie into a hazard area for casual relief will not incur a penalty. From the rule:

2. Hazards are in-bounds penalty areas. Discs landing in a Hazard...

Notice the wording of "discs landing in a hazard," not something like "throws from within a hazard." As the hazard area is clearly stated to be in bounds, and the rule makes no mention of throwing from within the hazard being a penalty, the hazard area can logically be treated as any other in-bounds area after the disc has come to rest.

Similarly, if a player's disc were to come to rest in a hazard area just on the basket-side of a stake, casual relief that would take the player into a non-hazard inbounds area would not keep that player from taking a penalty stroke for landing in the hazard. Also, that player would not be allowed 1 meter relief from the hazard line, but would have to take their lie immediately behind the stake, assuming no other obstructions.

To sum up, the exact wording of the rule states that the hazard area is played as an in-bounds area, except any throw that lands within the hazard area incurs a one throw penalty. Otherwise there is no indication that it should be played any different from any other in-bounds area. What did I miss?

 

[teemkey]

I don't have a problem with speculation. I really only have a problem with insisting that "the rule book is clear on this" when it is a situation created outside the rules of play and is not covered by the existing rules.

Were I to encounter the situation in question on the course, the very first thing I'd do is try to find the TD to clarify. Absent that, I'd be playing provisionally from two or three different lies due to the multiple possible rulings that could result from applying a logical extension of the closest existing rule(s) (a.k.a. 801.01A). And even then, it is possible that none of those logical extensions are the correct answer.

Ah, I see you want to apply the straw man argument. Please reference where your quoted phrase (i.e."the rule book is clear on this") occurs in one of the preceding posts -- excluding yours of course

 

[JoakimBL]

I agree with kerplunk and others. Also, with ropes and stakes defined as casual obstacles, I would think moving them if they are in your stance would be perfectly fine, no?

 

[coupe]

Someone didn't read the Caddy Book. :thmbdown::thmbdown::thmbdown: