| |
Main
Date: 12 Apr 2007 21:26:59
From: Luke
Subject: Simple rules question
|
2 players hit short on a par 3. Out player hits chip 3 feet from hole.
B4 out player can mark his ball, 2nd player chips too hard and hits
1st player's ball, knocking it back 3 feet. 2nd player's ball ends
up 2 inches from hole.
What we did: 1st player replaced his ball as close to its original
spot as cld be ascertained, and putted from there. 2nd player tapped in
for par.
Question: should player 2 have waited for player 1 to mark B4 chipping?
Should anyone have been penalized?
We play ready golf, so this all happened slam-bang.
Luke in Ca
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 04:19:55
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr, 11:39, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>
> > David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
> > constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
>
> But that was done by a Swede....and what does he know!
>
He's American, he just lives in Scandinavia.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 08:33:08
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 04:19:55 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On 16 Apr, 11:39, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> > David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
>> > constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
>>
>> But that was done by a Swede....and what does he know!
>>
>
>He's American, he just lives in Scandinavia.
>
Well, that explains everything! :-)
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
> light on it.
>
David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 08:27:33
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
>> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
>> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
>> light on it.
>>
>
>David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
>constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
>
>However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
>couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
>
What is "LS"?
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 03:41:03
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:
> On 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
> >> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
> >> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
> >> light on it.
> >>
> >
> >David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
> >constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
> >
> >However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
> >couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
> >
>
> What is "LS"?
Leith Society, www.leithsociety.com
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:40:04
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 03:41:03 -0400, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
>
>> On 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
>> >> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
>> >> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
>> >> light on it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
>> >constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
>> >
>> >However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
>> >couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
>> >
>>
>> What is "LS"?
>
>Leith Society, www.leithsociety.com
Awesome site. Thanks for the link.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 04:25:21
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > writes:
> On 16 Apr 2007 03:41:03 -0400, Aress Gee
> <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
> >John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
> >
> >> On 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> > In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
> >> >> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
> >> >> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
> >> >> light on it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
> >> >constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
> >> >
> >> >However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
> >> >couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What is "LS"?
> >
> >Leith Society, www.leithsociety.com
>
> Awesome site. Thanks for the link.
Like all online discussion groups, the content must be taken
with a grain of salt. Leith Society discussions occasionally
devolve into what seems like a contest to see who can
confuse himself fastest.
YMMV (since, by my own advice, this post should be taken
with a grain of salt).
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 10:45:53
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 04:25:21 -0400, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>Like all online discussion groups, the content must be taken
>with a grain of salt. Leith Society discussions occasionally
>devolve into what seems like a contest to see who can
>confuse himself fastest.
I'm sure I would win.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 15:31:56
From: Mark Myers
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 04:25:21 -0400, Aress Gee said...
> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2007 03:41:03 -0400, Aress Gee
> > <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> writes:
> > >
> > >> On 16 Apr 2007 01:10:00 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > >> > In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
> > >> >> "..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
> > >> >> as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
> > >> >> light on it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
> > >> >constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
> > >> >
> > >> >However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
> > >> >couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> What is "LS"?
> > >
> > >Leith Society, www.leithsociety.com
> >
> > Awesome site. Thanks for the link.
>
> Like all online discussion groups, the content must be taken
> with a grain of salt. Leith Society discussions occasionally
> devolve into what seems like a contest to see who can
> confuse himself fastest.
>
> YMMV (since, by my own advice, this post should be taken
> with a grain of salt).
The content is usually pretty good.
I can't stand the site/thread navigation. I should only have to click
once to load a whole thread, not once per post. It puts me off.
--
Mark Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I have all the specs and diagrams at home.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 20:39:47
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
johnty wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 05:13, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
>
>>"..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
>>as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
>>light on it.
>>
>
>
> David, I don't know why the wording was adjusted, other than they
> constantly revise the language to make reading it simpler (!).
>
But that was done by a Swede....and what does he know!
> However, someone from LS submitted a very similar query to the USGA a
> couple of years ago. Their response was that it's a DQ.
>
>
I posted this very question to the LS myself, also a couple of years
ago!(ie What is the strength of 'IS'?). As is usual with LS a variety of
opinions surfaced....however the dominant 'lawyers' over there
maintained that it has the same strength as 'must' or 'shall'.....and I
didn't feel any the wiser!
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:48:23
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Apr 15, 4:03 am, "johnty" <john...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> wrote:
>
> > My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
> > hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
> > for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
> > is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
> > 10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
> > not, IMO.
>
> Yes, it would.
An UNSPOKEN agreement? How does one even make such
an agreement? I don't think you mean a written contract is
John Hancock'ed...
Now in these circumstances, some will ask ' OK if I go first,
even though you are away? [where there is something preventing
the person who actually is away from playing quickly (raking
trap, etc...)].
If one answers 'go ahead', have we left the hallowed ground?
-- Thor
-- Thor
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 11:47:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
One place where we regularly skip honors is when someone makes a sand
save, is still far, and is raking his bunker. Someone else tends the
pin for a third player - speeding up play considerably.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 14:13:11
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
Thor wrote:
>
> Now in these circumstances, some will ask ' OK if I go first,
> even though you are away? [where there is something preventing
> the person who actually is away from playing quickly (raking
> trap, etc...)].
>
> If one answers 'go ahead', have we left the hallowed ground?
>
> -- Thor
The rule about 'order of play' is a little more hazy than it looks. In
that rule you will notice the wording "...the ball farthest from the
hole IS played first...". There is no 'MUST' or 'SHALL' about it, and
therefore one must judge the strength of the word 'IS' in how determined
the rule is. In the '2000' and prior version of the Rules the words were
"..shall be played first....". I have not seen any official explanation
as to why the wording was changed, perhaps 'Johnty' might shine some
light on it.
The current rule about 'agreeing' to play out of turn concerns itself
generally with whether this is done to give one of them an advantage in
a particular situation, in which case the players are definitely
disqualified.
Conversely I believe players would not be breaching the rule if in
isolated instances as described above a player agrees to let the other
play first.
In my view, an agreement to 'waive the rule' that occurs prior to
commencing the round, or is introduced as a general concept during the
round is actually b reaching the rules.
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 11:05:12
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 15 Apr, 13:50, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
>
>
>
>
>
> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >johnty wrote:
> >> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
> >>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
> >>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
> >>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
> >>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
> >>>not, IMO.
>
> >> Yes, it would.
>
> >Like he said!!
>
> >cheers
> >david
>
> It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
> is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
It is irrelevant what the penalty statement within any particular rule
says. Agreeing to exclude *any* rule results in disqualification.
A one-off agreement, like dec 10-2c/2, is acceptable but continuous
exclusion of rule 10 by playing ready golf is a violation of rule 1-3.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 22:11:14
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 15 Apr 2007 11:05:12 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On 15 Apr, 13:50, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >johnty wrote:
>> >> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
>> >>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
>> >>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
>> >>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
>> >>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
>> >>>not, IMO.
>>
>> >> Yes, it would.
>>
>> >Like he said!!
>>
>> >cheers
>> >david
>>
>> It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
>> is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
>
>It is irrelevant what the penalty statement within any particular rule
>says. Agreeing to exclude *any* rule results in disqualification.
But you aren't excluding a rule. You are just not doing something the
rule allows you to do. How is that a violation?
If I choose not to take relief and play a ball from a lateral hazard
-- is that a violation of the rule as well?
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 12:44:38
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176660312.303170.226910@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Apr, 13:50, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >johnty wrote:
>> >> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
>> >>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
>> >>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
>> >>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
>> >>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
>> >>>not, IMO.
>>
>> >> Yes, it would.
>>
>> >Like he said!!
>>
>> >cheers
>> >david
>>
>> It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
>> is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
>
> It is irrelevant what the penalty statement within any particular rule
> says. Agreeing to exclude *any* rule results in disqualification.
>
> A one-off agreement, like dec 10-2c/2, is acceptable but continuous
> exclusion of rule 10 by playing ready golf is a violation of rule 1-3.
>
Who said that golf rules were easy to understand? ...
10-2c states that agreeing to play out of order -- TO GIVE ONE OF THEM AN
ADVANTAGE -- they are disqualified. So, it looks to me like ready golf (ie,
no agreement on advantage) is okay as far as this rule goes. Right?
There's still a haze in my mind about this whole agreeing to waive a rule
thing ... but I'm thinkin' that as long as you keep that advantage thing out
of the equation, you're alright. But what do I know?
Bob
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 08:21:53
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
It is irrelevant that the rule itself does not generally penalise a
player - it's still a rule, and agreeing to exclude any rule *does*
carry a penalty of disqualification.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 15:45:31
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 15 Apr 2007 08:21:53 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>It is irrelevant that the rule itself does not generally penalise a
>player - it's still a rule, and agreeing to exclude any rule *does*
>carry a penalty of disqualification.
That would apply if one person decided to play Ready Golf. But a
tournament or a friendly game decided that the game they are playing
is Ready Golf - following all of the other Rules of Golf - but being
considerate to the course and other players on the course.
USGA handicap scores can still be posted.
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 02:03:02
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
> hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
> for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
> is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
> 10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
> not, IMO.
Yes, it would.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
johnty wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
>>not, IMO.
>
>
> Yes, it would.
>
Like he said!!
cheers
david
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 08:50:30
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>johnty wrote:
>> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
>>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
>>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
>>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
>>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
>>>not, IMO.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it would.
>>
>
>
>Like he said!!
>
>cheers
>david
It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 20:27:32
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, johnty wrote:
> On 13 Apr, 16:12, Zuke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is this true in Match play as well? I thought the player hitting the
>> shot in match play was in control of what other people could do
>
>
> That used to be the case, but not since 1984.
>
Just shows how old I am. Can you still stymie your opponent on
the green?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 00:42:55
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:27:32 -0400, Zuke <me@privacy.net > wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, johnty wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr, 16:12, Zuke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is this true in Match play as well? I thought the player hitting the
>>> shot in match play was in control of what other people could do
>>
>>
>> That used to be the case, but not since 1984.
>>
>
>Just shows how old I am. Can you still stymie your opponent on
>the green?
Nope...not since 1952.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 21:25:21
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:42:55 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:27:32 -0400, Zuke <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, johnty wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Apr, 16:12, Zuke <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this true in Match play as well? I thought the player hitting the
>>>> shot in match play was in control of what other people could do
>>>
>>>
>>> That used to be the case, but not since 1984.
>>>
>>
>>Just shows how old I am. Can you still stymie your opponent on
>>the green?
>
>Nope...not since 1952.
We play stymies in Match Play Madness. Its a lot of fun, I tell you.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 01:33:07
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 13 Apr, 16:12, Zuke <m...@privacy.net > wrote:
>
> Is this true in Match play as well? I thought the player hitting the
> shot in match play was in control of what other people could do
That used to be the case, but not since 1984.
|
| |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:12:10
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Simon wrote:
> On 13 Apr, 08:37, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs to wait
>>> ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
>>
>> (I think you have your players back to front in your question).
>>
>> This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
>> that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
>> ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and lift
>> his ball from a putting green for any reason.
>>
>> Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
>> mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
>> rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
>> playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and has
>> in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a Rule)...which
>> reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule affecting the
>> rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
>>
>> This suggests that 'player two' is disqualified. The question could then
>> be asked "..Does denying a player his rights in this way constitute a
>> Refusal to comply with a Rule ?.."
>>
>> Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
>> that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the ball
>> lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had an
>> opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
>>
>> I personally feel that the rule still applies to your situation, and
>> thus the competitor should be disqualified.
>>
>> However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
>> abandoned.....and anything goes!
>>
>> cheers
>> david
>
> David, here's my take on the question...
>
> In the original post, 'before the player could mark his ball', doesn't
> really tell us whether the player had stated his intention to mark the
> ball. If the first player hadn't made his intention clear, then player
> 2 was perfectly justified in playing his shot and shouldn't be
> penalised.
>
>
Is this true in Match play as well? I thought the player hitting the
shot in match play was in control of what other people could do.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 10:25:45
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
Zuke wrote:
> Is this true in Match play as well?
I believe so, the Rules 22-1 and 16-1 give a player the right to mark
and lift their ball, and hitting up on a player before he has had such
an opportunity constitutes denying him that right. It is fair to say
that a player would need to declare his intention, before his
opponent/fellow competitor plays his shot, in order to secure that right.
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:40:01
From:
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Apr 13, 7:33 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:37:25 +1000, david s-a
>
> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
> >abandoned.....and anything goes!
>
> >cheers
> >david
>
> David,
>
> I get the gist of what you are saying but I think that saying the
> Rules of Golf are abandoned is a stretch.
> --
>
> jvdp
> RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
"Ready golf" does us all a favor and does not abandon the rules.
Unless of course you prefer 6 hour rounds while the know nothings
stand around while other know nothings plumb bob etc.
|
| |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 03:37:06
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 13 Apr, 08:37, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs to wait
> > ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
>
> (I think you have your players back to front in your question).
>
> This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
> that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
> ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and lift
> his ball from a putting green for any reason.
>
> Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
> mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
> rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
> playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and has
> in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a Rule)...which
> reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule affecting the
> rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
>
> This suggests that 'player two' is disqualified. The question could then
> be asked "..Does denying a player his rights in this way constitute a
> Refusal to comply with a Rule ?.."
>
> Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
> that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the ball
> lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had an
> opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
>
> I personally feel that the rule still applies to your situation, and
> thus the competitor should be disqualified.
>
> However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
> abandoned.....and anything goes!
>
> cheers
> david
David, here's my take on the question...
In the original post, 'before the player could mark his ball', doesn't
really tell us whether the player had stated his intention to mark the
ball. If the first player hadn't made his intention clear, then player
2 was perfectly justified in playing his shot and shouldn't be
penalised.
|
| |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 04:39:37
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
"Luke" <luke451@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4IudnapTpfULm4LbnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@comcast.com...
>2 players hit short on a par 3. Out player hits chip 3 feet from hole.
> B4 out player can mark his ball, 2nd player chips too hard and hits
> 1st player's ball, knocking it back 3 feet. 2nd player's ball ends
> up 2 inches from hole.
>
> What we did: 1st player replaced his ball as close to its original
> spot as cld be ascertained, and putted from there. 2nd player tapped in
> for par.
>
> Question: should player 2 have waited for player 1 to mark B4 chipping?
> Should anyone have been penalized?
>
> We play ready golf, so this all happened slam-bang.
>
> Luke in Ca
Ya did just fine ... rule 18-5 ... put the ball that was hit back where it
was and the other ball stays where it came to rest.
It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs to wait
... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
|
| | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 00:56:53
From: Luke
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
"Bob" <Junk@bin.net > wrote in message
news:dQDTh.16481$Um6.9384@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Luke" <luke451@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4IudnapTpfULm4LbnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>2 players hit short on a par 3. Out player hits chip 3 feet from hole.
>> B4 out player can mark his ball, 2nd player chips too hard and hits
>> 1st player's ball, knocking it back 3 feet. 2nd player's ball ends
>> up 2 inches from hole.
>>
>> What we did: 1st player replaced his ball as close to its original
>> spot as cld be ascertained, and putted from there. 2nd player tapped in
>> for par.
>>
>> Question: should player 2 have waited for player 1 to mark B4 chipping?
>> Should anyone have been penalized?
>>
>> We play ready golf, so this all happened slam-bang.
>>
>> Luke in Ca
>
> Ya did just fine ... rule 18-5 ... put the ball that was hit back where it
> was and the other ball stays where it came to rest.
>
> It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs to wait
> ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
Thanks to all for your attention. One small question: who determines exactly
where
the ball that was struck gets replaced? If it's the player whose ball was
struck,
his opinion might differ from his opponent's. Perhaps someone was
considerably
closer to the hole and could act as arbiter, but everyone might have a bias
esp
when there's money involved (and there's *always* money involved!) Golf is
and honorable game played by honorable men, but I've known certain
gentlemen who would use just such an opportunity to end up a foot or two
closer to the hole than they should be.
Luke in Ca
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 12:16:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:56:53 +0545, "Luke" <luke451@comcast.net >
wrote:
>Thanks to all for your attention. One small question: who determines exactly
>where
>the ball that was struck gets replaced? If it's the player whose ball was
>struck,
>his opinion might differ from his opponent's. Perhaps someone was
>considerably
>closer to the hole and could act as arbiter, but everyone might have a bias
>esp
>when there's money involved (and there's *always* money involved!) Golf is
>and honorable game played by honorable men, but I've known certain
>gentlemen who would use just such an opportunity to end up a foot or two
>closer to the hole than they should be.
In the LPGA US Open in Cherry Hills, I was asked (by the official) to
point out where Annika's original ball was before it was moved. This
would indicate that the replacement point isn't a matter of any one
player.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 17:37:25
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
Bob wrote:
> It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs to wait
> ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
>
>
(I think you have your players back to front in your question).
This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and lift
his ball from a putting green for any reason.
Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and has
in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a Rule)...which
reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule affecting the
rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
This suggests that 'player two' is disqualified. The question could then
be asked "..Does denying a player his rights in this way constitute a
Refusal to comply with a Rule ?.."
Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the ball
lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had an
opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
I personally feel that the rule still applies to your situation, and
thus the competitor should be disqualified.
However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
abandoned.....and anything goes!
cheers
david
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 01:04:21
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr, 03:11, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 11:05:12 -0700, "johnty" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 15 Apr, 13:50, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
>
> >> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> >johnty wrote:
> >> >> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
> >> >>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
> >> >>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
> >> >>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
> >> >>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
> >> >>>not, IMO.
>
> >> >> Yes, it would.
>
> >> >Like he said!!
>
> >> >cheers
> >> >david
>
> >> It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
> >> is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
>
> >It is irrelevant what the penalty statement within any particular rule
> >says. Agreeing to exclude *any* rule results in disqualification.
>
> But you aren't excluding a rule. You are just not doing something the
> rule allows you to do. How is that a violation?
>
You're concentrating on just a part of the rule, John. 10-1b/10-2c,
where it says the ball farthest from the hole is to be played first,
is the violation. This isn't just an opinion by the way, this is the
answer given by the USGA to a similar query.
Pardon me for answering you twice earlier, the first draft was not
meant to be transmitted. (Whichever one you found the more sensible
is the the one I meant to post, of course...)
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 08:31:48
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 01:04:21 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On 16 Apr, 03:11, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2007 11:05:12 -0700, "johnty" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 15 Apr, 13:50, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:52:44 +1000, david s-a
>>
>> >> <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >> >johnty wrote:
>> >> >> On 15 Apr, 02:30, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
>> >> >>>hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
>> >> >>>for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
>> >> >>>is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
>> >> >>>10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
>> >> >>>not, IMO.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, it would.
>>
>> >> >Like he said!!
>>
>> >> >cheers
>> >> >david
>>
>> >> It's an "option" for the player to recall the stroke under10-1c. How
>> >> is it a violation to not do something you are not required to do?
>>
>> >It is irrelevant what the penalty statement within any particular rule
>> >says. Agreeing to exclude *any* rule results in disqualification.
>>
>> But you aren't excluding a rule. You are just not doing something the
>> rule allows you to do. How is that a violation?
>>
>
>You're concentrating on just a part of the rule, John. 10-1b/10-2c,
>where it says the ball farthest from the hole is to be played first,
>is the violation. This isn't just an opinion by the way, this is the
>answer given by the USGA to a similar query.
Ah, OK. I can see your point there. But it hardly seems reasonable
to me give a DQ playing out of order 1) Gives no advantage to either
side, and 2) Is done to keep up pace.
I seem to recall a PGA Tour event recently where the finishing groups
were racing the darkness and they played out of turn. I'm pretty sure
it was on the first playoff hole at the Honda. IIRC, Viillegas was
pacing off his yardage and another guy in the playoff went ahead and
hit. Technically speaking should he have been DQed?
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:34:34
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:31:48 -0400, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>
>Ah, OK. I can see your point there. But it hardly seems reasonable
>to me give a DQ playing out of order 1) Gives no advantage to either
>side, and 2) Is done to keep up pace.
>
>I seem to recall a PGA Tour event recently where the finishing groups
>were racing the darkness and they played out of turn. I'm pretty sure
>it was on the first playoff hole at the Honda. IIRC, Viillegas was
>pacing off his yardage and another guy in the playoff went ahead and
>hit. Technically speaking should he have been DQed?
Never mind. See decision 1-3/1.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 14:10:15
From: Rick Brandt
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
david s-a wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs
> > to wait ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
> >
> >
> (I think you have your players back to front in your question).
>
> This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
> that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
> ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and
> lift his ball from a putting green for any reason.
>
> Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
> mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
> rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
> playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and
> has in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a
> Rule)...which reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule
> affecting the rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
>
> This suggests that 'player two' is disqualified. The question could
> then be asked "..Does denying a player his rights in this way
> constitute a Refusal to comply with a Rule ?.."
>
> Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
> that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the
> ball lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had
> an opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
[snip]
Is there some limit on the distances involved here? Can I make a second player
wait while I lift my ball when we are still 150 yards out? I always thought
lifting was restricted to when all players were on the green.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:12:25
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com > writes:
> david s-a wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > It player two says he wants to mark his ball then player one needs
> > > to wait ... and, of course, I can't find that rule right now ...
> > >
> > >
> > (I think you have your players back to front in your question).
> >
> > This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
> > that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
> > ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and
> > lift his ball from a putting green for any reason.
> >
> > Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
> > mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
> > rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
> > playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and
> > has in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a
> > Rule)...which reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule
> > affecting the rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
> >
> > This suggests that 'player two' is disqualified. The question could
> > then be asked "..Does denying a player his rights in this way
> > constitute a Refusal to comply with a Rule ?.."
> >
> > Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
> > that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the
> > ball lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had
> > an opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
> [snip]
>
> Is there some limit on the distances involved here? Can I make a second player
> wait while I lift my ball when we are still 150 yards out? I always thought
> lifting was restricted to when all players were on the green.
Rick,
Rule 22 and Decisions 22/2 and 22/3 will help you
with those questions.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 17:11:01
From: The Tman
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
I take it back. Dec 3-4/1 is indeed close to being applicable, but
with a couple of conditions that would have to be met before the DQ.
Namely, that B (the player off the green, or putting) refused to
wait, even after A (the player with the ball on the green) announced
his intention to lift the ball. And that A's ball (in some way) was in
a position to assist B's ball.
Wording of the Decision:
3-4/1 Competitor Not Given Opportunity to Lift Ball Assisting
Fellow-Competitor
Q. In stroke play, A’s ball lies near the hole in a position to assist
B, whose ball lies off the green. A states his intention to lift his
ball under Rule 22-1. However, B says that he does not want A’s ball
lifted. B plays before A has an opportunity to lift his ball. Should B
be penalized?
A. Yes. B is disqualified under Rule 3-4.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:37:25 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>Decision 3-4/1 looks fairly close to being applicable, except that in
>that case the 'player two' actually stated that he didn't want the ball
>lifted, and he then deliberately played before 'player one' had an
>opportunity to lift his ball. 'Player two' was disqualified.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:57:29
From: The Tman
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:37:25 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>(I think you have your players back to front in your question).
I think he was using "out" to describe the player whose ball was
outside his fellow competitor's ball.
>
>This is interesting. Rule 22-1 states that "...if a player considers
>that a ball might assist any other player, he may lift it if it is his
>ball...". Furthermore, Rule 16-1 also permits a player to mark and lift
>his ball from a putting green for any reason.
He may also request that the player already on the green lift his
ball, though there are caveats if that gets abused.
>
>Clearly, if the 'player one' has announced his intention to lift and
>mark his ball under either Rule 16-1 or Rule 22-1 then either of those
>rules allow him to proceed accordingly. In this case 'player two', by
>playing up before the ball is lifted has denied him that right, and has
>in effect breached Rule 3-4 (Refusal to Comply with a Rule)...which
>reads "..If a competitor refuses to comply with a Rule affecting the
>rights of another competitor, he is disqualified.."
...
>
>I personally feel that the rule still applies to your situation, and
>thus the competitor should be disqualified.
I think this is a stretch. But will investigate the case of a player A
being on the green, announcing his intention to lift, and player B off
the green, proceeding with his shot before player A has a chance to
lift.
>
>However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
>abandoned.....and anything goes!
>
>cheers
>david
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:33:12
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:37:25 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>
>However, in playing 'ready golf', the official Rules of Golf are
>abandoned.....and anything goes!
>
>cheers
>david
David,
I get the gist of what you are saying but I think that saying the
Rules of Golf are abandoned is a stretch.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 10:14:17
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> I get the gist of what you are saying but I think that saying the
> Rules of Golf are abandoned is a stretch.
> --
John,
I really only mentioned that in passing, we all know that an attempt is
made to conform with most rules in playing 'ready golf', except those
rules that would interfere with the concept.
However, it is a matter of fact that under R&A jurisdiction (and
probably under USGA jurisdicition also) there could be no appeal to any
Committee or affiliated body for a formal ruling on this particular
round. Those bodies are not authorised to even consider rulings on any
round of golf played outside the total RoG.
I guess a 'hypothetical' could be put to the USGA for an opinion, and I
know that the R&A will sometimes respond to a request for a
clarification not addressed in the Decisions book, if submitted by a
'student of the rules'.
cheers
david
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 13:30:57
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr, 09:25, Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>
> Like all online discussion groups, the content must be taken
> with a grain of salt.
It better than you suggest. There's some very experienced rules
officials at a high level contributing...
> Leith Society discussions occasionally
> devolve into what seems like a contest to see who can
> confuse himself fastest.
...but this is true, nevertheless.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 11:25:14
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
"johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > writes:
> On 16 Apr, 09:25, Aress Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Like all online discussion groups, the content must be taken
> > with a grain of salt.
>
>
>
> It better than you suggest. There's some very experienced rules
> officials at a high level contributing...
I did say "grain of salt" not "pound of salt."
>
> > Leith Society discussions occasionally
> > devolve into what seems like a contest to see who can
> > confuse himself fastest.
>
>
>
> ...but this is true, nevertheless.
I think that novices and those with only a moderate level
of rules knowledge need to be careful when reading some
of those threads.
--
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. People who use golf as some sort of status
Aress symbol are destined to go unfulfilled.
Gee -- Golf's Most Beloved Figure
+++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 21:14:40
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 16 Apr 2007 11:25:14 -0400, Aress Gee
<invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote:
>
>I think that novices and those with only a moderate level
>of rules knowledge need to be careful when reading some
>of those threads.
You forgot ",....Pflum." at the end of the sentence.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 09:11:50
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:14:17 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>>
>> I get the gist of what you are saying but I think that saying the
>> Rules of Golf are abandoned is a stretch.
>> --
>
>
>John,
>
>I really only mentioned that in passing, we all know that an attempt is
>made to conform with most rules in playing 'ready golf', except those
>rules that would interfere with the concept.
>
>However, it is a matter of fact that under R&A jurisdiction (and
>probably under USGA jurisdicition also) there could be no appeal to any
>Committee or affiliated body for a formal ruling on this particular
>round. Those bodies are not authorised to even consider rulings on any
>round of golf played outside the total RoG.
>
>I guess a 'hypothetical' could be put to the USGA for an opinion, and I
>know that the R&A will sometimes respond to a request for a
>clarification not addressed in the Decisions book, if submitted by a
>'student of the rules'.
>
>cheers
>david
David,
I mistook your assertion that playing by the rules of golf could not
be done while playing ready golf. If that *IS* what you are saying
have to say I disagree. You can still follow all the ROG and move
quickly.
On your second paragraph -- how was this round played outside the ROG?
I don't see anything in the OP that says they didn't follow the rules.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 00:56:13
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 19 Apr, 03:23, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
>
> People putt out all of the time on the Tour - even though they are not
> away. They don't get disqualified for doing this.
It is permitted on the putting green
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:51:09
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On 19 Apr 2007 00:56:13 -0700, johnty <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> People putt out all of the time on the Tour - even though they are not
>> away. They don't get disqualified for doing this.
>
>It is permitted on the putting green
Despite the "rule", it is permitted on the putting green, and the
fairways, and the rough - to speed up the game.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 01:28:29
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
It is interesting to define cheating.
It's against the rules to foul in basketball, but the strategy for the
team that's 6 points down with a minute to go is to foul. They
accept the penalty.
In football, a lineman will choose to hold over having his quarterback
sacked. It's called a "good penalty".
In hockey, you trip the guy who is going in unimpeded towards the
goal.
Most golf rules are there to give us the option to avoid "hitting it
as it lies" by accepting the stated penalty.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:21:18
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> It is interesting to define cheating.
>
> It's against the rules to foul in basketball, but the strategy for the
> team that's 6 points down with a minute to go is to foul. They
> accept the penalty.
>
> In football, a lineman will choose to hold over having his quarterback
> sacked. It's called a "good penalty".
>
> In hockey, you trip the guy who is going in unimpeded towards the
> goal.
>
> Most golf rules are there to give us the option to avoid "hitting it
> as it lies" by accepting the stated penalty.
We term these as 'professional fouls', the same sort of thing occurs in
professional soccer. I've yet to see a professional golfer who would
give away a stroke to the field to obtain some other advantage.
cheers
david
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:50:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:21:18 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>We term these as 'professional fouls', the same sort of thing occurs in
>professional soccer. I've yet to see a professional golfer who would
>give away a stroke to the field to obtain some other advantage.
With golf, the only advantage available is a lower score.
We will give away a stroke to the field when we determine that we
won't likely be able to hack our way out of a lie with a net
improvement over the penalty.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 07:44:02
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> I mistook your assertion that playing by the rules of golf could not
> be done while playing ready golf. If that *IS* what you are saying
> have to say I disagree. You can still follow all the ROG and move
> quickly.
>
> On your second paragraph -- how was this round played outside the ROG?
> I don't see anything in the OP that says they didn't follow the rules.
Ummm.......this need not go on too long John! There was reference in the
OP to 'ready golf'. While this obviously means 'let's get on with it
without undue delay', in this country (Oz) it also impacts on 'order of
play' issues and implies an agreement to waive the rules in that
regard...as well as ignoring or modifying 'stroke and distance'
penalties and any other activities that seemingly and unnecessarily
delay the game, especially for others. Perhaps we have different
national views on the concept of 'ready golf'! No big deal!
I agree, the OP did not actually show that they did not follow the rules.
cheers
david
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 21:30:31
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Simple rules question
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:44:02 +1000, david s-a
<dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>>
>> I mistook your assertion that playing by the rules of golf could not
>> be done while playing ready golf. If that *IS* what you are saying
>> have to say I disagree. You can still follow all the ROG and move
>> quickly.
>>
>> On your second paragraph -- how was this round played outside the ROG?
>> I don't see anything in the OP that says they didn't follow the rules.
>
>
>Ummm.......this need not go on too long John! There was reference in the
>OP to 'ready golf'. While this obviously means 'let's get on with it
>without undue delay', in this country (Oz) it also impacts on 'order of
>play' issues and implies an agreement to waive the rules in that
>regard...as well as ignoring or modifying 'stroke and distance'
>penalties and any other activities that seemingly and unnecessarily
>delay the game, especially for others. Perhaps we have different
>national views on the concept of 'ready golf'! No big deal!
>
>I agree, the OP did not actually show that they did not follow the rules.
>
>cheers
>david
David,
We're just having a nice, calm, reasonable[1] discussion here.
My version of "ready golf" is essentially "hit when you are ready to
hit, regardless of who is away, has honors, etc." There is no penalty
for playing out of turn in stroke play and in a friendly match there
is usually an unspoken agreement to not invoke your rights under
10-1c. Would that constitute an agreement to waive the ROG? Probably
not, IMO.
"Ready golf" does not constitute waiving stroke and distance,
provisional's, etc. Though, truth be told, if I lost a ball I would
likely just drop one, keep playing, and give myself an "X" for the
hole.
[1] Scandalous I know! :-)
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
|
