| |
Main
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:26:47
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Well, nobody took my suggestion to hand out a short rules summary to people
playing in the city tournament last week. It's just for fun (flighted by
age, no handicap, and the prizes are paperweights), so you can't get too
upset about things, but it's always interesting to see how badly people
understand the rules. Here are some of the things I witnessed:
Ball on the teeing ground for another hole was dropped (without taking a
penalty) about 20 yards away taking it back on the line of the shot that put
it there (and probably not coincidentally getting a large tree out of the
way of the next shot.
Ball OB dropped next to where it went out (not sure what penalty the guy
took)
Hitting a ball that was OB (Not sure in this case but I've also had
arguments with people over where OB is, when the ball is outside the stakes
but inside a mowed edge that generally runs at the edge of the course)
Ball on cartpath dropped on the wrong side and (but not nearer the hole)
Ball hit into water hazard dropped beside where it finished (not where it
first crossed the hazard line, not that the hazard was marked lateral
anyway.
Ball on apron lifted for cleaning.
Ball on green lifted for cleaning without marking it.
Lots of questions of fellow competitors about club selection.
A few people altering their lie or their swing path by their pre-shot
activities (e.g. pressing down the grass behind the ball or clearing long
stuff behind it to get a clear shot at it.
I never saw a ball actually dropped according to proper procedure (I did see
this two weeks earlier when playing with the championship flight players --
even though I'm not sure the guy who did it was really allowed free relief.
Of course this is mostly the simple stuff with no ambiguity involved. I
guess I shouldn't worry about how people handle poor markings. One of the
things you notice if you watch a pro tournament is that a lot of care is
taken over any situation where the ball is going to be moved, either for a
free drop or a penalty for going into a hazard. Knowing you are on TV and
some viewer is going to DQ you if you don't do it right is no doubt a big
part of that, but when you watch what the rules guys go through just to take
relief from a grandstand or a path you realize that most folks really don't
know how to do it "by the rules". I always found those rules quizzes that
used to be in the USGA publication every year to be frustrating because most
of the questions dealt with complicated situations in which the rules had
already been broken (sometimes several times on the same hole). Maybe the
USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
few people know it.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57
From: Ares Gee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > writes:
> Maybe the
> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
> few people know it.
Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:43:11
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Lack of effort as the USGA amongst other activities sells the ROG for $1 a
copy.
"Ares Gee" <invalid@not_real_address.com > wrote in message
news:barmz9n1n1q.fsf@server007.serverquality.com...
> "warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Maybe the
>> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make
>> everyone
>> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>> few people know it.
>
> Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>
> a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>
> --
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. Aress Gee
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:07:25
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com >
wrote:
>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Maybe the
>> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>> few people know it.
>
>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>
>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
A, without a doubt.
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe the
>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>few people know it.
>>
>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>
>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>
>
> A, without a doubt.
I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
follow the rules to the letter of the law.
How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net >
wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe the
>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>>few people know it.
>>>
>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>
>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>
>>
>> A, without a doubt.
>
>
>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>
>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>
>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>
>Mike
I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
to the tee.
Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
violated rule in the game.
Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
stroke and distance, after all.
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:12:03
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the
>>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>>>few people know it.
>>>>
>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>
>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>
>>>
>>>A, without a doubt.
>>
>>
>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>
>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>
>>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
> considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
> to the tee.
>
> Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
> violated rule in the game.
>
> Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
> stroke and distance, after all.
That's the thing I suspect most people don't know--they figure just a
stroke penalty.
But it ain't! :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:18:37
From: Bear
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>wrote:
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the
>>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>>>few people know it.
>>>>
>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>
>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>
>>>
>>> A, without a doubt.
>>
>>
>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>
>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>
>>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>
>>Mike
>
>I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
>considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
>to the tee.
>
>Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
>violated rule in the game.
>
>Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
>stroke and distance, after all.
It is what we do when walking back isn't an option. We also drop the
ball as close to where the ball would have exited the course. We
assume that the shot you would have hit was only slightly less stinky
than the one you did. Has the effect of encouraging provisionals when
in doubt.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 11:08:47
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:18:37 GMT, Bear <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14 -0400, John van der Pflum
><jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe the
>>>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>>>>few people know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>>
>>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A, without a doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>>
>>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>>
>>>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
>>considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
>>to the tee.
>>
>>Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
>>violated rule in the game.
>>
>>Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
>>stroke and distance, after all.
>
>It is what we do when walking back isn't an option. We also drop the
>ball as close to where the ball would have exited the course. We
>assume that the shot you would have hit was only slightly less stinky
>than the one you did. Has the effect of encouraging provisionals when
>in doubt.
Oh, see I always drop right in the middle of the fairway. Because you
know, everytime you hit a second shot it's right down the middle.
Any idiot can hit a second shot. :-)
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:37:10
From: Bear
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:08:47 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:18:37 GMT, Bear <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14 -0400, John van der Pflum
>><jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the
>>>>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>>>>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>>>>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>>>>>>>few people know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A, without a doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>>>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>>>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>>>
>>>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>>>
>>>>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>>>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>
>>>I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
>>>considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
>>>to the tee.
>>>
>>>Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
>>>violated rule in the game.
>>>
>>>Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
>>>stroke and distance, after all.
>>
>>It is what we do when walking back isn't an option. We also drop the
>>ball as close to where the ball would have exited the course. We
>>assume that the shot you would have hit was only slightly less stinky
>>than the one you did. Has the effect of encouraging provisionals when
>>in doubt.
>
>Oh, see I always drop right in the middle of the fairway. Because you
>know, everytime you hit a second shot it's right down the middle.
>
>Any idiot can hit a second shot. :-)
It is amazing how often the provisional is right down the middle and
yet most times you still wanna find that first ball in play.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 11:42:55
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
It called course management 101 - never, ever give away strokes.
The provisional already lies 3. The challenge is where will the ball the
original ball be when it lies 3.
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:47bbf29kah37a43r85dm36k1k0f0uqrn1g@4ax.com...
>
> It is amazing how often the provisional is right down the middle and
> yet most times you still wanna find that first ball in play.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 23:21:55
From: Bear
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:42:55 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>It called course management 101 - never, ever give away strokes.
Glad you figured that out.
>
>The provisional already lies 3. The challenge is where will the ball the
>original ball be when it lies 3.
>
>"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote in message
>news:47bbf29kah37a43r85dm36k1k0f0uqrn1g@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> It is amazing how often the provisional is right down the middle and
>> yet most times you still wanna find that first ball in play.
>>
>>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 18:06:24
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:47bbf29kah37a43r85dm36k1k0f0uqrn1g@4ax.com...
>
> It is amazing how often the provisional is right down the middle and
> yet most times you still wanna find that first ball in play.
>
Most of the time I would rather find the first crappy shot and be lying one
than go play the provisional in the middle of the fairway which would be
lying three. Not to mention I hate to loose balls.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 12:50:57
From: Prilosec
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
in my experience that provision hit long and straight always means you find
your first ball behind a tree or between two roots.
"Bear" <bearlysane@XShawX.ca > wrote in message
news:47bbf29kah37a43r85dm36k1k0f0uqrn1g@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:08:47 -0400, John van der Pflum
> <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:18:37 GMT, Bear <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14 -0400, John van der Pflum
>>><jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee
>>>>>> <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the
>>>>>>>>USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make
>>>>>>>>everyone
>>>>>>>>aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play
>>>>>>>>after
>>>>>>>>hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>few people know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A, without a doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>>>>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>>>>follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>>>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>>>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>>>>letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
>>>>considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
>>>>to the tee.
>>>>
>>>>Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
>>>>violated rule in the game.
>>>>
>>>>Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
>>>>stroke and distance, after all.
>>>
>>>It is what we do when walking back isn't an option. We also drop the
>>>ball as close to where the ball would have exited the course. We
>>>assume that the shot you would have hit was only slightly less stinky
>>>than the one you did. Has the effect of encouraging provisionals when
>>>in doubt.
>>
>>Oh, see I always drop right in the middle of the fairway. Because you
>>know, everytime you hit a second shot it's right down the middle.
>>
>>Any idiot can hit a second shot. :-)
>
> It is amazing how often the provisional is right down the middle and
> yet most times you still wanna find that first ball in play.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 16:07:52
From: gary hayenga
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 2006-08-30 11:08:47 -0400, John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > said:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:18:37 GMT, Bear <bearlysane@XShawX.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:25:14 -0400, John van der Pflum
>> <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:50 -0500, Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John van der Pflum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to
>>>>>>> make everyone aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how
>>>>>>> to play after hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very
>>>>>>> clear to me that few people know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>>> b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A, without a doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't correct):
>>>> That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they don't
>>>> follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>>>
>>>> How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>>> stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>>> figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>>>>
>>>> And I'll bet that once people see that others aren't following the
>>>> letter of the rules, they figure there's no reason they should.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I will toss down a ball and keep playing but only for pace of play
>>> considerations. If I'm playing in a tournament I will gladly go back
>>> to the tee.
>>> Mike -- I expect the situation you described is the most knowingly
>>> violated rule in the game.
>>> Though, I throw a ball down and take TWO strokes. A lost ball *is*
>>> stroke and distance, after all.
>>
>> It is what we do when walking back isn't an option. We also drop the
>> ball as close to where the ball would have exited the course. We
>> assume that the shot you would have hit was only slightly less stinky
>> than the one you did. Has the effect of encouraging provisionals when
>> in doubt.
>
> Oh, see I always drop right in the middle of the fairway. Because you
> know, everytime you hit a second shot it's right down the middle.
> Any idiot can hit a second shot. :-) --
>
> jvdp
> The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
> http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
Yes, but putting the provisional right down the middle is what
guarantees that you will be able to find your first one in bounds and
just barely playable. It's a corollary of Murphy's Law. If you
actually walked back to the tee and hit one *afterwards* you're doomed
to hit one even farther out of bounds/into the woods.
gary hayenga
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:21:36
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net > writes:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> > On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Maybe the USGA and others should go back to basics and at least
> >>> try to make everyone aware of things like how hazards and OB are
> >>> defined, how to play after hitting there, how to take a legal
> >>> drop, etc. It's very clear to me that few people know it.
> >>
> >>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> >>
> >>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> >>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
> > A, without a doubt.
>
>
> I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't
> correct): That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they
> don't follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>
> How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
> stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
> figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
Yeah, but that wasn't the question. 'Knowing and disregarding'
is a separate issue.
If I have scooted out to the course for a fast trip around
and am cramming-in as many holes as I can before dark, I'm
certainly not going to proceed under stroke and distance
so that my card shows a legitimate triple-bogey.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:15:16
From: Mike Dalecki
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Aress Gee wrote:
> Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net> writes:
>
>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the USGA and others should go back to basics and at least
>>>>>try to make everyone aware of things like how hazards and OB are
>>>>>defined, how to play after hitting there, how to take a legal
>>>>>drop, etc. It's very clear to me that few people know it.
>>>>
>>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>>>
>>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>
>>>A, without a doubt.
>>
>>
>>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't
>>correct): That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they
>>don't follow the rules to the letter of the law.
>>
>>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
>>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
>>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
>
>
> Yeah, but that wasn't the question. 'Knowing and disregarding'
> is a separate issue.
Well, I disagreed that it was the only question. It's not necessarily
lack of effort, nor lack of materials. Players know, and simply don't
follow them because they don't figure it matters much, or they've taken
a penalty that in their mind is ok.
The way you posed the original question was, in my opinion, a false
dichotomy. There is a third alternative not listed.
Mike
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 06:16:09
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net > writes:
> Aress Gee wrote:
>
> > Mike Dalecki <mike@dalecki.net> writes:
> >
> >>John van der Pflum wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Maybe the USGA and others should go back to basics and at least
> >>>>>try to make everyone aware of things like how hazards and OB are
> >>>>>defined, how to play after hitting there, how to take a legal
> >>>>>drop, etc. It's very clear to me that few people know it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> >>>>
> >>>>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> >>>>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
> >>>
> >>>A, without a doubt.
> >>
> >>
> >>I think there's a third choice, too (not that the above isn't
> >>correct): That some know them and don't figure it matters much if they
> >>don't follow the rules to the letter of the law.
> >>
> >>How many people, when a ball is lost, just toss down a ball, take a
> >>stroke penalty, and go on? They may know the proper procedure, but
> >>figure what the heck, I'm taking my penalty, and it's ok.
> > Yeah, but that wasn't the question. 'Knowing and disregarding'
> > is a separate issue.
>
> Well, I disagreed that it was the only question. It's not necessarily
> lack of effort, nor lack of materials. Players know, and simply don't
> follow them because they don't figure it matters much, or they've
> taken a penalty that in their mind is ok.
>
> The way you posed the original question was, in my opinion, a false
> dichotomy. There is a third alternative not listed.
My question was why do players not KNOW the Rules.
Yours seems more about why they do not play by them.
I never suggested that mine was the only question. That
would be silly (even by my standards).
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 17:58:13
From: Kenny Stultz
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
In article <barmz9n1n1q.fsf@server007.serverquality.com >,
invalid@not_real_address.com says...
>
>"warren montgomery" <wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> Maybe the
>> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>> few people know it.
>
>Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>
>a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>
>--
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Mr. Aress Gee
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's not even close. It's lack of effort. A rulebook costs a dollar or two
and anyone with access to the internet can read all the Rules for free at
www.usga.org.
Kenny
--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship"
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:52:37
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Thor wrote:
> d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
> to
> the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
> that
> this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
> hole.
Gotta go with d. Way too many subjectivities and complexities...most
people without law degrees just throw their arms in the air and say
"Who cares?" Just look at the Decisions for the Advice rule alone.
IMHO, the more complex a Rule is, the more it should be either thrown
out (apply Thor's Rule for MPM) or simplified into an objective format
(i.e. allow all advice or no advice).
It's a simple game with a simple objective. It is also a very
difficult game....most rulings that allow or deny a perceived advantage
don't really reflect a that advantage in terms of the score you would
have shot or the outcome of the match if the rule was there or not.
The Rules should be reflective of that. USGA/R&A....Quit trying to
make it "fair" or "equitable"....keep it simple and see how easy it
would be to shrink the Decisions book into the size of the Rules book.
<exiting soapbox >
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:01:43
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Unlike football, baseball, or tennis, the golf course is a complex venue.
The first 11 rules about the game are fairly simple and then you hit the
venue rules starting with ROG 12 - Searching for and Identifying Ball. How
many ball sports have a rule about searching for the ball? When was the last
time you saw pond in the middle of an NFL field? Or a club house?
"newellsatwsu" <newellatwsu@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:1156895557.889649.240460@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thor wrote:
>> d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
>> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
>> to
>> the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
>> that
>> this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
>> hole.
>
> Gotta go with d. Way too many subjectivities and complexities...most
> people without law degrees just throw their arms in the air and say
> "Who cares?" Just look at the Decisions for the Advice rule alone.
> IMHO, the more complex a Rule is, the more it should be either thrown
> out (apply Thor's Rule for MPM) or simplified into an objective format
> (i.e. allow all advice or no advice).
>
> It's a simple game with a simple objective. It is also a very
> difficult game....most rulings that allow or deny a perceived advantage
> don't really reflect a that advantage in terms of the score you would
> have shot or the outcome of the match if the rule was there or not.
> The Rules should be reflective of that. USGA/R&A....Quit trying to
> make it "fair" or "equitable"....keep it simple and see how easy it
> would be to shrink the Decisions book into the size of the Rules book.
>
> <exiting soapbox >
>
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 21:31:02
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:01:43 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Unlike football, baseball, or tennis, the golf course is a complex venue.
>The first 11 rules about the game are fairly simple and then you hit the
>venue rules starting with ROG 12 - Searching for and Identifying Ball. How
>many ball sports have a rule about searching for the ball? When was the last
>time you saw pond in the middle of an NFL field? Or a club house?
I haven't seen the NFL rule book. How does it compare to the ROG?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:01:04
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29 Aug 2006 16:52:37 -0700, "newellsatwsu"
<newellatwsu@adelphia.net > wrote:
>Thor wrote:
>> d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
>> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
>> to
>> the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
>> that
>> this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
>> hole.
>
>Gotta go with d. Way too many subjectivities and complexities...most
>people without law degrees just throw their arms in the air and say
>"Who cares?" Just look at the Decisions for the Advice rule alone.
>IMHO, the more complex a Rule is, the more it should be either thrown
>out (apply Thor's Rule for MPM) or simplified into an objective format
>(i.e. allow all advice or no advice).
>
>It's a simple game with a simple objective. It is also a very
>difficult game....most rulings that allow or deny a perceived advantage
>don't really reflect a that advantage in terms of the score you would
>have shot or the outcome of the match if the rule was there or not.
>The Rules should be reflective of that. USGA/R&A....Quit trying to
>make it "fair" or "equitable"....keep it simple and see how easy it
>would be to shrink the Decisions book into the size of the Rules book.
>
><exiting soapbox >
One of my favorite rulings: "Suck it up and hit the ball. There are
children starving, for Crissake!"
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:11:26
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
> Regarding (c), my son's golf coach refuses to accept the correct
> lateral hazard drop procedure and insists the point where it 'entered
> the hazard' is the point where it made a splash - and you drop 'even
> with that point'. This is what he teaches. My son knows it is wrong.
The rules use the words crossed the boundary... not entered the hazard.
Are they the same thing.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:08:46
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
dugjustdug wrote:
> Aress Gee wrote:
> > If I have scooted out to the course for a fast trip around
> > and am cramming-in as many holes as I can before dark, I'm
> > certainly not going to proceed under stroke and distance
> > so that my card shows a legitimate triple-bogey.
>
> Moot point if you're a single digit - though many here may disagree.
> In the interest of time, I might do the same thing - but, I would not
> post the round either.
But the rules say you must post it under certain conditions (like you
only skirted the rules once or twice in the round). There is quite a
bit of leeway in what you can do and still have a legitimate score for
handicap. There are procedures for holes not completed and holes played
outside the RoG. By not posting it... you may be breaking the rules. :)
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:01:37
From: Parinella
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Thor wrote:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
> > On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> > >
> > >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> > >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
> >
> > A, without a doubt.
>
> c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
> culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
> and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
>
> d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
> to
> the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
> that
> this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
> hole.
It's even more than d). It's not just that the rules are complex, but
that they are arbitrary (even stupid, dare I say). For instance,
saliva is to be treated as either an abnormal ground condition or a
loose impediment, but not casual water (Decision 25/6). Would any of
you argue if they changed the Decision tomorrow?
There seems to be no critical examination of what the Rules _should_ be
or what is fair, only what a few Decision-makers have decided is what
the Rules say. Here's something to do. Pretend the only Rule of Golf
is "There is no penalty for an accidental mistake that does not confer
an advantage." Take one of the Rules quizzes at the USGA site, and
you'll probably get about 50% correct.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:18:18
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
"Parinella" <parinell@shelltown.com > writes:
> Thor wrote:
> > John van der Pflum wrote:
> > > On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> > > >
> > > >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> > > >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
> > >
> > > A, without a doubt.
> >
> > c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
> > culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
> > and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
> >
> > d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
> > many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
> > to
> > the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
> > that
> > this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
> > hole.
>
> It's even more than d). It's not just that the rules are complex, but
> that they are arbitrary (even stupid, dare I say). For instance,
> saliva is to be treated as either an abnormal ground condition or a
> loose impediment, but not casual water (Decision 25/6). Would any of
> you argue if they changed the Decision tomorrow?
What would that accomplish since casual water is an abnormal ground
condition and relief from all types of abnormal ground conditions is
available under Rule 25-1?
What extra rights or obligations would the player have if the
decision used the phrase 'casual water' rather than 'abnormal
ground condition'?
I think you have provided an excellent example of (a) by
showing that you do not know your definitions.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 06:13:07
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29-Aug-2006, "Parinella" <parinell@shelltown.com > wrote:
> It's even more than d). It's not just that the rules are complex, but
> that they are arbitrary
this is true for all games
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 21:26:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29 Aug 2006 14:01:37 -0700, "Parinella" <parinell@shelltown.com >
wrote:
>It's even more than d). It's not just that the rules are complex, but
>that they are arbitrary (even stupid, dare I say). For instance,
>saliva is to be treated as either an abnormal ground condition or a
>loose impediment, but not casual water (Decision 25/6). Would any of
>you argue if they changed the Decision tomorrow?
I have retrieved a golf ball from a dog before. I didn't think about
cleaning it. I'm not sure what other saliva would apply - unless the
rule applies equally well for remains from other bodily functions.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:31:23
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Rob P wrote:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> > PS -- Nice tmesis, Pflum.
> Tmesis was one of the words in the national spelling bee this year.
> Unfortunately, when used in a sentence, the example given was not
> "unf**kingbelievable".
Funny! I always remember my Linguistics class in college... the
young female teacher illustrated this term using 'FAN-F***ING-TASTIC'.
Then she blushed so very bright red.
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:22:16
From: Rob P
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> PS -- Nice tmesis, Pflum.
> --
>
Tmesis was one of the words in the national spelling bee this year.
Unfortunately, when used in a sentence, the example given was not
"unf**kingbelievable".
Rob P.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:30:27
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29 Aug 2006 12:22:16 -0700, "Rob P" <rpyle_1999@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> PS -- Nice tmesis, Pflum.
>> --
>>
>
>Tmesis was one of the words in the national spelling bee this year.
>Unfortunately, when used in a sentence, the example given was not
>"unf**kingbelievable".
>
>Rob P.
:-) It was the only word I knew how to spell in the whole damn
competition.
I get Dictionary.com's Word of the Day email and I try and use
whatever the word happens to be once or twice that day (in a hopeless
attempt to remember it). Tmesis happened to be the word a couple of
years ago and for some reason it has stuck with me.
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:58:45
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:30:27 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2006 12:22:16 -0700, "Rob P" <rpyle_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >John van der Pflum wrote:
> >
> >> PS -- Nice tmesis, Pflum.
> >> --
> >>
> >
> >Tmesis was one of the words in the national spelling bee this year.
> >Unfortunately, when used in a sentence, the example given was not
> >"unf**kingbelievable".
> >
> >Rob P.
>
> :-) It was the only word I knew how to spell in the whole damn
> competition.
>
> I get Dictionary.com's Word of the Day email and I try and use
> whatever the word happens to be once or twice that day (in a hopeless
> attempt to remember it). Tmesis happened to be the word a couple of
> years ago and for some reason it has stuck with me.
Tmesis (n.): inflammation of the tmee.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 21:23:14
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:30:27 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
>I get Dictionary.com's Word of the Day email and I try and use
>whatever the word happens to be once or twice that day (in a hopeless
>attempt to remember it). Tmesis happened to be the word a couple of
>years ago and for some reason it has stuck with me.
http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/reg.jsp
That's fun. Another resource is
http://wordsmith.org/words/today.html
The most fun one I've found that you can subscribe to is:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/
It's not daily though.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:15:44
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
warren montgomery wrote:
> Well, nobody took my suggestion to hand out a short rules summary to people
> playing in the city tournament last week. It's just for fun (flighted by
> age, no handicap, and the prizes are paperweights), so you can't get too
> upset about things, but it's always interesting to see how badly people
> understand the rules.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. It's a TOURNAMENT. The organizers
should be shot.
Did it cost extra to enter this "tournament"?
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 18:52:42
From: Kenny Stultz
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
In article <1156875868.700117.148930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
thorpub@rsgohio.com says...
>
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>> >
>> >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>> >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>
>> A, without a doubt.
>
>c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
> culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
> and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
>
>d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
>to
> the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
>that
> this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
>hole.
>
>Regarding (c), my son's golf coach refuses to accept the correct
>lateral hazard drop procedure and insists the point where it 'entered
>the hazard' is the point where it made a splash - and you drop 'even
>with that point'. This is what he teaches. My son knows it is wrong.
>
>--
>-- David "Thor" Collard
>-- My It is golf.
>-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
>
There's a lot of truth in d). Every year the USGA publishes a Rules quiz and
something like 10 people in the whole county get all the questions right.
If I can't answer those questions taking the test using an "open book" format
and with no time at all on how long I take to do the test, then what are my
chances of doing things right on Saturday afternoon when I'm on a crowded
course and I need to make quick decisions and the foursome behind me is
breathing down my neck?
Kenny
--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship"
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:07:34
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29 Aug 2006 18:52:42 GMT, stultz@wai.com (Kenny Stultz) wrote:
>In article <1156875868.700117.148930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>thorpub@rsgohio.com says...
>>
>>John van der Pflum wrote:
>>> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
>>> >
>>> >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
>>> >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>>>
>>> A, without a doubt.
>>
>>c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
>> culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
>> and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
>>
>>d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
>> many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
>>to
snippage
>>
>>--
>>-- David "Thor" Collard
>>-- My It is golf.
>>-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
>>
>
>There's a lot of truth in d). Every year the USGA publishes a Rules quiz and
>something like 10 people in the whole county get all the questions right.
Absofreakinglutely!!!!!!! It would be great to have them in every
day English and not "legalesse" but that would be too logical for our
litigious society.
PS -- Nice tmesis, Pflum.
--
jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 06:11:56
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 29-Aug-2006, John van der Pflum <jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:
> >There's a lot of truth in d). Every year the USGA publishes a Rules quiz
> >and
> >something like 10 people in the whole county get all the questions right.
>
> Absofreakinglutely!!!!!!! It would be great to have them in every
> day English and not "legalesse" but that would be too logical for our
> litigious society.
Like ziss?!?
http://tinyurl.com/p67t8
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:28:05
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Aress Gee wrote:
> If I have scooted out to the course for a fast trip around
> and am cramming-in as many holes as I can before dark, I'm
> certainly not going to proceed under stroke and distance
> so that my card shows a legitimate triple-bogey.
Moot point if you're a single digit - though many here may disagree.
In the interest of time, I might do the same thing - but, I would not
post the round either.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:14:27
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Why not post? ESC limits hole score maximums. If stroke and distance puts
you over ESC, you can still drop one and post the score.
"dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com > wrote in message
news:1156876085.656593.160070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Aress Gee wrote:
>> If I have scooted out to the course for a fast trip around
>> and am cramming-in as many holes as I can before dark, I'm
>> certainly not going to proceed under stroke and distance
>> so that my card shows a legitimate triple-bogey.
>
> Moot point if you're a single digit - though many here may disagree.
> In the interest of time, I might do the same thing - but, I would not
> post the round either.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:20:09
From: Aress Gee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > writes:
> Why not post? ESC limits hole score maximums. If stroke and distance puts
> you over ESC, you can still drop one and post the score.
>
> "dugjustdug" <prestigerealty@yvn.com> wrote in message
> news:1156876085.656593.160070@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Aress Gee wrote:
> >> If I have scooted out to the course for a fast trip around
> >> and am cramming-in as many holes as I can before dark, I'm
> >> certainly not going to proceed under stroke and distance
> >> so that my card shows a legitimate triple-bogey.
> >
> > Moot point if you're a single digit - though many here may disagree.
> > In the interest of time, I might do the same thing - but, I would not
> > post the round either.
I would post, ESC handles it (as sfb said).
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Aress Gee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:24:28
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> wrote:
> >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> >
> >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
>
> A, without a doubt.
c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
to
the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
that
this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
hole.
Regarding (c), my son's golf coach refuses to accept the correct
lateral hazard drop procedure and insists the point where it 'entered
the hazard' is the point where it made a splash - and you drop 'even
with that point'. This is what he teaches. My son knows it is wrong.
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 07:18:04
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
> There seems to be no critical examination of what the Rules _should_ be
> or what is fair, only what a few Decision-makers have decided is what
> the Rules say. Here's something to do. Pretend the only Rule of Golf
> is "There is no penalty for an accidental mistake that does not confer
> an advantage." Take one of the Rules quizzes at the USGA site, and
> you'll probably get about 50% correct.
But most of those situations in the rules quiz hardly ever apply. The
problem is when people can't follow the 4 or 5 situations that come up
98% of the time, like OB, dropping from a hazard, declaring a ball
unplayable, hitting from a hazard, and God almighty, PLAY THE BALL AS
IT LIES. If you don't know these 5 main rules, you shouldn't be
playing in a tournament.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 05:25:16
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Parinella wrote:
> Thor wrote:
> > John van der Pflum wrote:
> > > On 29 Aug 2006 12:14:57 -0500, Ares Gee <invalid@not_real_address.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Which of these is MORE responsible for players not knowing the rules:
> > > >
> > > >a) Lack of effort on the part of the players.
> > > >b) Lack of materials available from the USGA.
> > >
> > > A, without a doubt.
> >
> > c) The coaches, parents, friends, even golf pros who define our golf
> > culture and cultivate ignorance by propagation of incorrect rules
> > and rationalizations for ignoring or rewriting them.
> >
> > d) The complexity and language of the rules themselves, which cause
> > many to give up trying to learn and understand them all, leading
> > to
> > the lack of effort specified in (a), and causing some to lament
> > that
> > this could/should be a much simpler game of hitting a ball into a
> > hole.
>
> It's even more than d). It's not just that the rules are complex, but
> that they are arbitrary (even stupid, dare I say). For instance,
> saliva is to be treated as either an abnormal ground condition or a
> loose impediment, but not casual water (Decision 25/6). Would any of
> you argue if they changed the Decision tomorrow?
>
> There seems to be no critical examination of what the Rules _should_ be
> or what is fair, only what a few Decision-makers have decided is what
> the Rules say. Here's something to do. Pretend the only Rule of Golf
> is "There is no penalty for an accidental mistake that does not confer
> an advantage." Take one of the Rules quizzes at the USGA site, and
> you'll probably get about 50% correct.
Some of the rules may be obscure and complicated, but they rarely come
into play. If you know how and where to drop a ball then that should
cover you for about 95% of your games. I can't remember the last time I
was involved in any rules discussion on the course (apart from helping
to identify a correct drop location). It's not that hard to learn (and
use) the few rules you need to get you round the course.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:06:09
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
> Yes, but putting the provisional right down the middle is what
> guarantees that you will be able to find your first one in bounds and
> just barely playable. It's a corollary of Murphy's Law. If you
> actually walked back to the tee and hit one *afterwards* you're doomed
> to hit one even farther out of bounds/into the woods.
You may be kidding, but there is more truth to it than many people
realize if you use the provisional correctly. It often gives you a
better indication of where the first ball might be based on whether you
think you hit the first ball farther, same distance or shorter than the
provisional.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 00:47:54
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:30:53 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Even a reasonable non-expert understanding of the ROG takes at least some
> >effort, and most golfers are just too lazy. It's unfortunate, but there it
> >is.
>
> I think the main reason people don't know the rules is because they
> are used to playing by casual rules without the ROG being mentioned.
> What I mean by this is - if you are playing with a new player or your
> son with some casual rules - make sure to mention whenever you break a
> rule.
This is a good observation. I always play by the rules, even if it's
just a twilight nine holes with my brother-in-law. Some friends think
it's a bit anal but my view is that when it comes to proper tournament
play, I pretty much know what to do in any situation.
Casual play without regard to the rules leads to confusion in
tournaments, unless the player makes sure he's aware of what should be
done even if he chooses not to do it.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:16:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 31 Aug 2006 00:47:54 -0700, "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> I think the main reason people don't know the rules is because they
>> are used to playing by casual rules without the ROG being mentioned.
>> What I mean by this is - if you are playing with a new player or your
>> son with some casual rules - make sure to mention whenever you break a
>> rule.
>
>
>This is a good observation. I always play by the rules, even if it's
>just a twilight nine holes with my brother-in-law. Some friends think
>it's a bit anal but my view is that when it comes to proper tournament
>play, I pretty much know what to do in any situation.
>
>Casual play without regard to the rules leads to confusion in
>tournaments, unless the player makes sure he's aware of what should be
>done even if he chooses not to do it.
The rule that is easiest to break with a child is that of "giving
advice". The rule that's worth while breaking with a crowded course
is "stroke and distance". I'm not thinking of other worth while rule
changes at the moment. (other than when we play golf-like games such
as scramble).
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 19:24:11
From: JimAmigo
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
You have way to much time on your hands. It's a game and should be fun.
Worry about your own game istead of what others are or aren't doing.
warren montgomery wrote:
> Well, nobody took my suggestion to hand out a short rules summary to people
> playing in the city tournament last week. It's just for fun (flighted by
> age, no handicap, and the prizes are paperweights), so you can't get too
> upset about things, but it's always interesting to see how badly people
> understand the rules. Here are some of the things I witnessed:
>
> Ball on the teeing ground for another hole was dropped (without taking a
> penalty) about 20 yards away taking it back on the line of the shot that put
> it there (and probably not coincidentally getting a large tree out of the
> way of the next shot.
>
> Ball OB dropped next to where it went out (not sure what penalty the guy
> took)
>
> Hitting a ball that was OB (Not sure in this case but I've also had
> arguments with people over where OB is, when the ball is outside the stakes
> but inside a mowed edge that generally runs at the edge of the course)
>
> Ball on cartpath dropped on the wrong side and (but not nearer the hole)
>
> Ball hit into water hazard dropped beside where it finished (not where it
> first crossed the hazard line, not that the hazard was marked lateral
> anyway.
>
> Ball on apron lifted for cleaning.
>
> Ball on green lifted for cleaning without marking it.
>
> Lots of questions of fellow competitors about club selection.
>
> A few people altering their lie or their swing path by their pre-shot
> activities (e.g. pressing down the grass behind the ball or clearing long
> stuff behind it to get a clear shot at it.
>
> I never saw a ball actually dropped according to proper procedure (I did see
> this two weeks earlier when playing with the championship flight players --
> even though I'm not sure the guy who did it was really allowed free relief.
>
> Of course this is mostly the simple stuff with no ambiguity involved. I
> guess I shouldn't worry about how people handle poor markings. One of the
> things you notice if you watch a pro tournament is that a lot of care is
> taken over any situation where the ball is going to be moved, either for a
> free drop or a penalty for going into a hazard. Knowing you are on TV and
> some viewer is going to DQ you if you don't do it right is no doubt a big
> part of that, but when you watch what the rules guys go through just to take
> relief from a grandstand or a path you realize that most folks really don't
> know how to do it "by the rules". I always found those rules quizzes that
> used to be in the USGA publication every year to be frustrating because most
> of the questions dealt with complicated situations in which the rules had
> already been broken (sometimes several times on the same hole). Maybe the
> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
> few people know it.
>
> --
> Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
> http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2006 21:35:12
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Playing by the rules -- NOT!
|
On 9 Sep 2006 19:24:11 -0700, "JimAmigo" <jwaters28@gmail.com > wrote:
>You have way to much time on your hands. It's a game and should be fun.
>Worry about your own game istead of what others are or aren't doing.
>
Did you not understand that this was in tournament play? Even if
Warren was out of contention, the honorable thing to do is protect the
field.
bk
>warren montgomery wrote:
>> Well, nobody took my suggestion to hand out a short rules summary to people
>> playing in the city tournament last week. It's just for fun (flighted by
>> age, no handicap, and the prizes are paperweights), so you can't get too
>> upset about things, but it's always interesting to see how badly people
>> understand the rules. Here are some of the things I witnessed:
>>
>> Ball on the teeing ground for another hole was dropped (without taking a
>> penalty) about 20 yards away taking it back on the line of the shot that put
>> it there (and probably not coincidentally getting a large tree out of the
>> way of the next shot.
>>
>> Ball OB dropped next to where it went out (not sure what penalty the guy
>> took)
>>
>> Hitting a ball that was OB (Not sure in this case but I've also had
>> arguments with people over where OB is, when the ball is outside the stakes
>> but inside a mowed edge that generally runs at the edge of the course)
>>
>> Ball on cartpath dropped on the wrong side and (but not nearer the hole)
>>
>> Ball hit into water hazard dropped beside where it finished (not where it
>> first crossed the hazard line, not that the hazard was marked lateral
>> anyway.
>>
>> Ball on apron lifted for cleaning.
>>
>> Ball on green lifted for cleaning without marking it.
>>
>> Lots of questions of fellow competitors about club selection.
>>
>> A few people altering their lie or their swing path by their pre-shot
>> activities (e.g. pressing down the grass behind the ball or clearing long
>> stuff behind it to get a clear shot at it.
>>
>> I never saw a ball actually dropped according to proper procedure (I did see
>> this two weeks earlier when playing with the championship flight players --
>> even though I'm not sure the guy who did it was really allowed free relief.
>>
>> Of course this is mostly the simple stuff with no ambiguity involved. I
>> guess I shouldn't worry about how people handle poor markings. One of the
>> things you notice if you watch a pro tournament is that a lot of care is
>> taken over any situation where the ball is going to be moved, either for a
>> free drop or a penalty for going into a hazard. Knowing you are on TV and
>> some viewer is going to DQ you if you don't do it right is no doubt a big
>> part of that, but when you watch what the rules guys go through just to take
>> relief from a grandstand or a path you realize that most folks really don't
>> know how to do it "by the rules". I always found those rules quizzes that
>> used to be in the USGA publication every year to be frustrating because most
>> of the questions dealt with complicated situations in which the rules had
>> already been broken (sometimes several times on the same hole). Maybe the
>> USGA and others should go back to basics and at least try to make everyone
>> aware of things like how hazards and OB are defined, how to play after
>> hitting there, how to take a legal drop, etc. It's very clear to me that
>> few people know it.
>>
>> --
>> Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
>> http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
|
|
