The (idiotic) rules of golf strikes again

[Newby]

[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311871622' post='3431529']
Imagine that on the PGA. Phil lines up the putt, oh it misses by a mile because of the bouncing action. Oh wait, that birdie is no gimmie either. Oops, a bit hard on that one trying to take the holes out of play. Well, that's a shame, 4 putt bogie from 15 feet.
[/quote]

All the courses on the PGA tour will be aerated 3 or more times a year. If they weren't there wouldn't be any decent courses for the PGA to play.

It's the aeration that keeps them in fettle.

They don't play them with aeration holes because who would pay big money to watch a lottery?

[j_moo]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1311874878' post='3431691']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311873015' post='3431600']
The leaderboard is not official and it can be wrong. That's great!

Why isn't it official, the PGA with millions in purses every week can't afford a few more scorers? Or is score keeping so difficult only a few are qualify to do it? [/quote]

IMO there's a good reason that it isn't offical, and it doens't have to do with affording scorers. It's fundamentally based on the fact that the player is expected to play honorably, which is something that I particularly enjoy about our game. To determine someone's true score, you pretty much have to be that person: An official would rarely be able to tell if a player bumped the ball a quarter of an inch while addressing it, but the player almost always can. Sometimes it's your intention that defines whether you technically made a stroke or not -- the player himself is the only one who really knows. Same for double hits. If we change all that to having a walk-along official decide what the player's score is, the dymamics of the game could easily change to that of basketball, baseball or football where part of the game is getting away with things the offical doesn't notice.


Asking players to play honestly is cool. Holding them to a high standard in reporting their scores is cool.
I like it as it is, and though I acknowledge that DQs may have changed who would have won a golf tournament on occasion, it is really, really rarely a problem that on Sunday the leaderboard is misleading people.
[/quote]


Dustin Johnson honestly and honorably gounded his club in a patch of dirt that was a bunker. The official could have prevented it but watched him do it. DJ's score was not the official score. There are many other instances where the player and official all thought the player was fine, only to have TV replay show otherwise.

The point being, the player doesn't always know. Neither does the official. But score at the moment is crucial in a tournament. It dictates how a player approaches the rest of the round. Other sports make boarderline calls all the time. You have to make a call and move on. If a winner is not certain at the end of play, something is wrong.

[j_moo]

[quote name='jlbos83' timestamp='1311875558' post='3431734']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311874491' post='3431671']
[quote name='jlbos83' timestamp='1311873926' post='3431641']
For practical purposes, what rule can you make about aeration holes? You can choose not to play, or take what you get. It's still a level playing field on the day. Or have a rule that says, if there are aeration holes, we'll just say you two putted?

As far as the leaderboard, we all know it IS right almost all of the time. There might be an error now and then, but it gets caught pretty quickly. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something other than DQ for an incorrect score, since the real objective should be to get it right. And for a pro tourney, it should be possible. For a smaller tourney, without all the "witnesses", the scorecard is all there is, it has to be right. If it isn't, I don't know that there is any way to fairly deal with it other than a DQ.
[/quote]


That's what they do for temporary greens. Aren't aerated greens temporary?

You're saying because people can't figure out who made the mistake, they should be DQed? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
[/quote]

You could make that argurment about aerated greens, though I would say that temporary greens are usually a lot smaller, and two putts isn't a a bad compromise. Assuming you'll two putt from anywhere on an aerated green is pretty optimistic. Again, the course is the same for everyone that day, maybe you won't shoot what you did last week, but it is still "fair". To extend things a bit.... after a nice rain, no wind, nice soft greens, you'll shoot one score. In a stiff wind, with hard greens, you'll shoot another score. Should we make rules to fix that? I know it is absurd, but the guiding principle in golf, forever, as been to play the course as you find it, and the ball as it lies. There are exceptions in the rules for a limited number of conditions, but even those are aimed at making the playing field level at any particular moment.

As far as the DQ, I'm not saying there's a DQ if you can't figure out who made the mistake. I'm saying that if a player turns in a card, after checking it, that is proven to be lower than what he shot, a DQ might not be inapporpriate. In some ways it may be a deterrent type of penalty. We all know there are people that will cheat. If the worst thing that would happen if you got caught shaving a stroke or two was correcting the score, or adding one or two, it might be worth the chance to some. Whereas if you know if you get caught, you are out, maybe not. No idea if that's the thinking behind it or not, but I could see it.
[/quote]

There's also not much chance to one putt from 10 feet on a temporary either.

Yes, that's why I think the rules should not be held as a sacred thing. It doesn't take everything into consideration. Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change? They say this at the Open all the time, par is what the weather gives you. So have common sense as guide and don't treat everything the same. Because they are not. Heck, people can't even agree what a scratch is in this forum.

You can't have players keep their own scores and think they will cheat. It's like giving beer to alcoholics and expecting them not to drink.

[Newby]

[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311879717' post='3431950']
Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change?
[/quote]

That is where the UK and European handicap systems score. Weather and conditions on the day are a factor in the rating.

[j_moo]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311877694' post='3431844']

They don't play them with aeration holes because who would pay big money to watch a lottery?
[/quote]


I think for that exact reason Bobby Jones created the Masters with no rough. He believed lies in the rough is a matter of luck. With no rough, the best player wins.

[j_moo]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311880069' post='3431966']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311879717' post='3431950']
Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change?
[/quote]

That is where the UK and European handicap systems score. Weather and conditions on the day are a factor in the rating.
[/quote]

Please excuse my American-centric ignorance. Didn't know that. Please explain how that works.

[QEight]

[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311881018' post='3432010']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311880069' post='3431966']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311879717' post='3431950']
Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change?
[/quote]

That is where the UK and European handicap systems score. Weather and conditions on the day are a factor in the rating.
[/quote]

Please excuse my American-centric ignorance. Didn't know that. Please explain how that works.
[/quote]

CSA is only used in tournaments. Not for everyday rating.

But I still do not see the problem. Days conditions are days conditions, you play and that's it. Why normal rounds should be made any more difficult? There are instructions for pin placements so that the whole yardage should stay close to stated.

[inmens]

The only change i would do to golf rules is the divot problem. A perfect drive lands into a deep, stupid divot. Please, free me of divots!

[DaveLeeNC]

I'm not sure that 'another set of rules' is an answer here. But there is a problem that some golfers run into if they try to 'live strictly by the rules as written'.

Fortunately I rarely run into this in my own play, but this was the norm where I learned the game long ago.

The Rules of Golf assume that there is 'some body/person' who makes reasonable decisions regarding course markings, GUR, 'winter rules', etc. That just isn't always the case.

But even these days on rare occasions I will play a course where

1) GUR is not marked (new sod, ground 'plowed or even roped off, but no local rules in place, etc)

2) Missing OB stakes, never existed OB stakes, etc.

3) Unmarked hazards (things that ANYBODY would call a water hazard)

4) Areas of rough with washout areas 1 foot deep (unmarked - they play like one cubic foot pot bunkers)

5) 3 inches of rain last night, very thin fairways, and no authority in place to declare lift/clean/place for the day (or more)

And so on. I'm not sure that 'another SINGLE set of rules' could be built to deal with this, but this is what some golfers deal with regularly - again it isn't me (at least anymore). And it is a problem for some golfers.

dave

[Newby]

[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311881018' post='3432010']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311880069' post='3431966']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311879717' post='3431950']
Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change?
[/quote]

That is where the UK and European handicap systems score. Weather and conditions on the day are a factor in the rating.
[/quote]

Please excuse my American-centric ignorance. Didn't know that. Please explain how that works.
[/quote]

UK and European handicapping is based almost entirely on competition play.
The course rating (or standard scratch score) is adjusted by applying a formula to all the scores returned for that competition round. This is called the CSS (competition standard scratch). It in effect makes allowance for good or bad conditions (weather and/or course). Most clubs have at least one medal competition a week. Handicaps are adjusted according to the variance of the player's net score from the CSS.

[j_moo]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311889925' post='3432420']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311881018' post='3432010']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311880069' post='3431966']
[quote name='j_moo' timestamp='1311879717' post='3431950']
Courses differ from day to day so why doesn't the rating or par change?
[/quote]

That is where the UK and European handicap systems score. Weather and conditions on the day are a factor in the rating.
[/quote]

Please excuse my American-centric ignorance. Didn't know that. Please explain how that works.
[/quote]

UK and European handicapping is based almost entirely on competition play.
The course rating (or standard scratch score) is adjusted by applying a formula to all the scores returned for that competition round. This is called the CSS (competition standard scratch). It in effect makes allowance for good or bad conditions (weather and/or course). Most clubs have at least one medal competition a week. Handicaps are adjusted according to the variance of the player's net score from the CSS.
[/quote]


Hmm, good idea, but not sure that's going to work for most of the local munis. Although, I'll be happy to be one of the volunteers to help adjust the handicap. Being the selfless person that I am, I'll sacrifice my time so that other fellow golfers can benefit from my rounds.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311887297' post='3432293']
I'm not sure that 'another set of rules' is an answer here. But there is a problem that some golfers run into if they try to 'live strictly by the rules as written'.

Fortunately I rarely run into this in my own play, but this was the norm where I learned the game long ago.

The Rules of Golf assume that there is 'some body/person' who makes reasonable decisions regarding course markings, GUR, 'winter rules', etc. That just isn't always the case.

But even these days on rare occasions I will play a course where

1) GUR is not marked (new sod, ground 'plowed or even roped off, but no local rules in place, etc)

2) Missing OB stakes, never existed OB stakes, etc.

3) Unmarked hazards (things that ANYBODY would call a water hazard)

4) Areas of rough with washout areas 1 foot deep (unmarked - they play like one cubic foot pot bunkers)

5) 3 inches of rain last night, very thin fairways, and no authority in place to declare lift/clean/place for the day (or more)

And so on. I'm not sure that 'another SINGLE set of rules' could be built to deal with this, but this is what some golfers deal with regularly - again it isn't me (at least anymore). And it is a problem for some golfers.

dave
[/quote]

Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.

[j_moo]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311887297' post='3432293']
I'm not sure that 'another set of rules' is an answer here. But there is a problem that some golfers run into if they try to 'live strictly by the rules as written'.

Fortunately I rarely run into this in my own play, but this was the norm where I learned the game long ago.

The Rules of Golf assume that there is 'some body/person' who makes reasonable decisions regarding course markings, GUR, 'winter rules', etc. That just isn't always the case.

But even these days on rare occasions I will play a course where

1) GUR is not marked (new sod, ground 'plowed or even roped off, but no local rules in place, etc)

2) Missing OB stakes, never existed OB stakes, etc.

3) Unmarked hazards (things that ANYBODY would call a water hazard)

4) Areas of rough with washout areas 1 foot deep (unmarked - they play like one cubic foot pot bunkers)

5) 3 inches of rain last night, very thin fairways, and no authority in place to declare lift/clean/place for the day (or more)

And so on. I'm not sure that 'another SINGLE set of rules' could be built to deal with this, but this is what some golfers deal with regularly - again it isn't me (at least anymore). And it is a problem for some golfers.

dave
[/quote]


Here you go. That's the idea. The rules don't have to be completely different. But let's recognize there are differences between well and poorly maintained courses and allow the golfers to play accordingly. And please don't punish us for others' laziness like not raking bunkers or not replacing divots.

[j_moo]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1311895607' post='3432618']
Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.
[/quote]


Does this mean as long as me and my crazy playing partner agreed, we could make up a game that resembles little to golf on TV and still call ourselves scratch? I think Willie Nelson use to have the rough relieve rule at his course at home, where he picked it up, walked to the middle of the fairway, and dropped.

[jlbos83]

The key word was acceptable local rules! There are examples in the rules, as well as prohibited local rules.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1311895607' post='3432618']

Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.
[/quote]

Yes it does - thanks.

dave

[Newby]

 

Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

 

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.

 

It also explains why US players coming over here have handicaps they can'y play to. They've been declaring GUR or preferred lies all over the place in order to get their vanity handicaps down.

[DaveLeeNC]

Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

 

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.

 

It also explains why US players coming over here have handicaps they can'y play to. They've been declaring GUR or preferred lies all over the place in order to get their vanity handicaps down.

 

How would you know if you played to your US index in the UK? Do UK courses have slopes and ratings that map well enough to how it is done in the US to make a reasonable judgment?

 

dave

 

 

 

[Newby]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311937991' post='3433441']

How would you know if you played to your US index in the UK? Do UK courses have slopes and ratings that map well enough to how it is done in the US to make a reasonable judgment?

dave
[/quote]

By having played with many visiting tourists on European courses and playing as a tourist in Florida.

Incidentally, all UK unions (except England's men's union) use the USGA rating system. Many courses (primarily tourist hot spots) have slopes.
The EGU uses a very similar rating system to USGA and it converts easily.

Friends and colleagues consistently report that they rarely encounter a North American who is playing off a too high handicap.

[Sawgrass]

Dave, I pressed the USGA on a related issue earlier this year. I asked them what requirement must be met before a small group of competitiors can legally consider themselves a committee for their competition. As it turns out, as long as you are competing with at least one other individual, the two (or more) of you can consider yourselves a committee, with the authority to institute acceptable local rules, and make judgement calls such as making a ruling on unmarked ground under repair.

 

This solves a lot of the problems you identify.

 

It also explains why US players coming over here have handicaps they can'y play to. They've been declaring GUR or preferred lies all over the place in order to get their vanity handicaps down.

 

I don't doubt what you say is true, but not for this reason. I've actually never seen a small group of golfers call themselves a committee as suggested above. But I see them giving themselves putts all the time. Miss a three footer, have it roll five feet past, then rake it back as if the five footer is too easy to bother with.

 

Put those guys in a formal competition and they're toast. Apparently, send them to Great Britain and they're toast too.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311939860' post='3433470']
[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311937991' post='3433441']
How would you know if you played to your US index in the UK? Do UK courses have slopes and ratings that map well enough to how it is done in the US to make a reasonable judgment?

dave
[/quote]

By having played with many visiting tourists on European courses and playing as a tourist in Florida.

Incidentally, all UK unions (except England's men's union) use the USGA rating system. Many courses (primarily tourist hot spots) have slopes.
The EGU uses a very similar rating system to USGA and it converts easily.

Friends and colleagues consistently report that they rarely encounter a North American who is playing off a too high handicap.
[/quote]

Interesting...... and nice to know..... I should have no problem getting strokes from the next Limey I encounter on a golf course....

Kinda reminds me in reverse the guy from Liverpool who was playing in the Golfweek Am Tour here in NC.....he insisted he was a A flight player.....he never could break 90 so he moved down to the B flight.....again, 90 would have been a great score from the guy, and he kept telling anyone who would listen that he normally shoots in the low 80's or high 70's back home...... best the rest of us could figure out was that he must have been playing 9 hole matches

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311939860' post='3433470']
[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311937991' post='3433441']
How would you know if you played to your US index in the UK? Do UK courses have slopes and ratings that map well enough to how it is done in the US to make a reasonable judgment?

dave
[/quote]

By having played with many visiting tourists on European courses and playing as a tourist in Florida.

Incidentally, all UK unions (except England's men's union) use the USGA rating system. Many courses (primarily tourist hot spots) have slopes.
The EGU uses a very similar rating system to USGA and it converts easily.

Friends and colleagues consistently report that they rarely encounter a North American who is playing off a too high handicap.
[/quote]

I would believe that this is true. But I still wonder how someone would make such a judgment. 'Properly rated' US golfers would most of the time 'not shoot their handicap' and that is how the system works.

I still think that there are WAY more vanity handicappers than there are sandbaggers. But I have no idea what a statement such as 'the UK uses the USGA rating system' means when (from your statement) many of them don't have slopes. It makes no sense to me unless you limit the discussion to scratch golfers AND there is a common definition of a scratch golfer between the US and UK - seems MOST unlikely to me since the US defines a scratch golfer in terms of its own system. I seriously doubt that the UK defines a scratch golfer in terms of the US system.

And from what I know it is well known that a legit '10 handicap' in the UK is a much better golfer than a legit '10 handicap' in the US. Just the way it is by design of the two systems.

It just isn't clear to me how you would casually bridge the two.

dave

[Newby]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311965650' post='3434039']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1311939860' post='3433470']
[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1311937991' post='3433441']
How would you know if you played to your US index in the UK? Do UK courses have slopes and ratings that map well enough to how it is done in the US to make a reasonable judgment?

dave
[/quote]

By having played with many visiting tourists on European courses and playing as a tourist in Florida.

Incidentally, all UK unions (except England's men's union) use the USGA rating system. Many courses (primarily tourist hot spots) have slopes.
The EGU uses a very similar rating system to USGA and it converts easily.

Friends and colleagues consistently report that they rarely encounter a North American who is playing off a too high handicap.
[/quote]

I would believe that this is true. But I still wonder how someone would make such a judgment. 'Properly rated' US golfers would most of the time 'not shoot their handicap' and that is how the system works.

I still think that there are WAY more vanity handicappers than there are sandbaggers. But I have no idea what a statement such as 'the UK uses the USGA rating system' means when (from your statement) many of them don't have slopes. It makes no sense to me unless you limit the discussion to scratch golfers AND there is a common definition of a scratch golfer between the US and UK - seems MOST unlikely to me since the US defines a scratch golfer in terms of its own system. I seriously doubt that the UK defines a scratch golfer in terms of the US system.

And from what I know it is well known that a legit '10 handicap' in the UK is a much better golfer than a legit '10 handicap' in the US. Just the way it is by design of the two systems.

It just isn't clear to me how you would casually bridge the two.

dave

[/quote]

Just my (and other I know) experiences of players from the US.
Not at all scientific, empirical is the word.

[DaveLeeNC]

SNIP

Just my (and other I know) experiences of players from the US.

Not at all scientific, empirical is the word.

 

I just wonder how much of this is vanity handicaps in the US (admittedly common) and how much is the fact that the two systems don't give 'the same golfer the same index'. My current index is an honest 4.8 - but it sure isn't a 4.8 in the UK. That would make me a sandbagger

 

dave

 

 

 

[Newby]

As you know the UK system is based on competition play and the course rating is based on the scratch player.
As you are a low (honest) 'capper, I would guess you would come out about one or two strokes higher. No pressure non comp rounds will tend to bring your average score down but low cappers tend to be pretty consistent. The ratchet adjustment effect is less pronounced for low cappers (ie 5 and below) in the UK system. There are no averages.

[Rockfish]

[quote name='jlbos83' timestamp='1311874682' post='3431683']
[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311873642' post='3431630']
[quote name='jlbos83' timestamp='1311841774' post='3430629']
Well, my opinions...
The penalty in the original post wasn't too harsh. He should have known the rule, or known to ask. It's not ambiguous, or complicated. It's not a different rule on the green than on the fairway. It's not different if he marked his ball or didn't mark his ball. What other penalty could there have been? I rather expect that he would agree, if you could ask him.[/quote]

The penalty is like getting your car confiscated for a parking ticket.

What other penalty ? How about 1 stroke ? After all he could have moved the ball a couple of inches with 1 stroke, no ?

1 stroke would have been FAIR. And aren't the rules about being fair ?
[/quote]
To me, at least, the slope is too slippery. You can't move your ball, and play it from the wrong place, and not correct it. Do you want to add a distance test to that? It was really unfortunate, but it was a consistent application of the rule. But let's say it was on a British open green, and it rolled 50 feet off the green, and he didn't know the rule, and put it back where it started? Are you going to try to differentiate? We are just going to disagree on this.[/quote]

First of all, a clarification. I thought I'd read the guy was DQ'd but can't be bothered to go back over all of it. If he was, THAT I think is ridiculous. There should be allowances for correcting scores.

Anyway, nope. *I* wouldn't differentiate at all.

And THAT slope is not "slippery" at all. HE did not move it. The ball was at rest, the player is nowhere near it. If it moves, put it back. Where's the problem ?

And in the your other case, the "distance test". No, no distance test. If the ball moves closer to the hole and the player plays it, add 1. If the ball moves farther away from the hole and the player plays it, no penalty.

Frankly I never knew this rule and probably would have done EXACTLY the same thing and gotten DQ'd (if I signed), or penalized 2 shots, both UNFAIR in IMO. A 1 stroke penalty is MORE than enough to cover this situation.

And BTW, can someone point be to the ball being at rest after 5 seconds - I couldn't find it.

[Rockfish]

[quote name='jlbos83' timestamp='1311874682' post='3431683']
[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311873642' post='3431630']
You're kidding, right ?

Is there any other game whether the "decisions", i.e. questions and answers/clarifications on the rules, are as much larger than the rules book itself ???
[/quote]

Not kidding in the least. The decisions just help show how to apply the rules. Since the players have to enforce the rules themselves, they provide the guidance to show us how. If we were umpires or referees in other sports, we would get a ton of training on how to apply the rules in those sports. I expect the difference in golf to another sport isn't that great, but in golf every player is responsible, rather than "only" the officials.
[/quote]

They are DECISIONS. They are answers to questions on the rules. That means the rules are not clear enough. If they WERE, there wouldn't be so many DECISION.

When there are SO many decisions it is ridiculous to think all player are going to know all the rules. Even Kev.

[Rockfish]

[quote name='HitEmTrue' timestamp='1311876695' post='3431791']
[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311873642' post='3431630']
What other penalty ? How about 1 stroke ? After all he could have moved the ball a couple of inches with 1 stroke, no ?
[/quote]

If my ball's in the bush, and I don't like the prospects of being behind the bush...then I'd forget about taking an unplayable lie penalty altogether. Just move the ball to the left of the bush...just move it a few inches or a couple feet...hit my shot...add your one stroke proposed penalty...and move on my merry way.
[/quote]

Had ta reach fer that one, didn't ya ?

The point was made about the putting green and the discussion was about the ball moving without any influence from the player. Has/had nothing to do with an "unplayable" where [u][b]you[/b][/u] were going to move the ball [u][b]purposely[/b][/u].

Oh, and BTW, if you DID move the ball a couple of feet, so long as you went no closer to the hole, you WOULD be adding the one stroke and playing from there.

(Of course you DO have to drop it though )

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Rockfish' timestamp='1311989400' post='3434910']
And in the your other case, the "distance test". No, no distance test. If the ball moves closer to the hole and the player plays it, add 1. If the ball moves farther away from the hole and the player plays it, no penalty.

And BTW, can someone point be to the ball being at rest after 5 seconds - I couldn't find it.
[/quote]


I suspect that what you wrote above is exactly what he meant by a "distance test." You seem to be describing a penalty or lack of penalty based on distance. (I really don't think that would make things easier or clearer than already written.)

I'm not sure why you're searching for "5" seconds, but here is a rule about 10 which is perhaps what you meant:


[b]16-2. Ball Overhanging Hole[/b]
When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Hole"][i]hole[/i][/url], the player is allowed enough time to reach the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Hole"][i]hole[/i][/url] without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Hole"][i]hole[/i][/url], it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into the [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Hole"][i]hole[/i][/url], the player is deemed to have [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Holed"][i]holed[/i][/url] out with his last [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Stroke"][i]stroke[/i][/url] and must add a [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#PenaltyStroke"][i]penalty stroke[/i][/url] to his score for the hole; otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule.

[Rockfish]

Here is the ultimate test of the rule. Say it is a very windy day, and I putt in a lull. The ball roll to half over the cup. I then mark my putt as I am allowed to do and let my competitors finish out. When I replace the ball it rolls in the hole due to a gust of wind. What is that ruling? I would do that every time I am playing on the off chance. It would also give me time to shade the grass as i went to mark my ball or stood over putt.

 

Don't bother to try this, the rules appropriately require you to put down a score that is the same as it would have been if you tapped it in:

 

16-2/0.5 Ball Overhanging Hole Is Lifted, Cleaned and Replaced; Ball Then Falls into Hole

 

Q. After an approach shot, a player's ball is overhanging the hole. The player walks up to the hole without unreasonable delay and notices that there is mud on the ball. The player marks the position of the ball and lifts it. He then cleans the ball and replaces it. The ball remains on the lip of the hole for about five seconds and then, as the player is preparing to tap it into the hole, the ball falls into the hole. What is the ruling?

 

A. Under Rule 16-2 , if a ball falls into the hole after it is deemed to be at rest, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke and he shall add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole. In this case, when the player marked the position of the ball it must have been at rest. The ball must be considered to have been at rest when it was replaced; otherwise, it would have to be replaced again (Rule 20-3d).

 

Accordingly, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke and must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole.

 

OK, I went back. You mentioned 5 seconds in this decision.

 

So I guess the question IS, WHEN is the replaced ball on the putting green "at rest" ?

 

 

And in the your other case, the "distance test". No, no distance test. If the ball moves closer to the hole and the player plays it, add 1. If the ball moves farther away from the hole and the player plays it, no penalty.

 

And BTW, can someone point be to the ball being at rest after 5 seconds - I couldn't find it.

 

 

I suspect that what you wrote above is exactly what he meant by a "distance test." You seem to be describing a penalty or lack of penalty based on distance. (I really don't think that would make things easier or clearer than already written.)

 

I'm not sure why you're searching for "5" seconds, but here is a rule about 10 which is perhaps what you meant:

 

 

16-2. Ball Overhanging Hole

When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into the hole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke and must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole; otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule.

 

Nope. I'm saying putting a ball back to where you placed it so long as YOU didn't cause it to move, should not be a penalty. It is totally logical AND, perhaps more than that, instinctual.

 

BUT, if you DO play it from where it rolled to, I'm describing a penalty (or lack of it) by DIRECTION. Ball rolls closer to the hole add 1. Ball rolls farther away from the hole, play it if you like, no penalty.