Jump to content

Sawgrass

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    16,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sawgrass

  1. Hey, buddy . . . I’m betting you wish you said, “The ball must be dropped into and COME TO REST within the defined relief area.” (Momentary excursions outside are acceptable,)
  2. I’d call all the players who were present and ask B, who is there among them, if he acknowledges he picked up his mark without first replacing his ball, and if he dropped, rather than placed his ball to get it in position. IMO it’s likely that he would tell the truth given the circumstances. If B didn’t acknowledge the facts you presented, I’d ask the other players. If no one saw anything but you (he said/he said) I’d rule in favor of B, despite my concern that he was lying.
  3. I’m sorry that you feel this way. I feel Player A is “that guy,” not the person reporting him. As an aside, next time you might wish to say, “I don’t think you’re allowed to do it that way” (in real time) which might inspire him to check or call a penalty on himself. You at least preserve your later option to enforce the ROG. Having been warned, he has an obligation to look into it.
  4. Here’s my take: A 1sp for violating R9.7b, a 1sp for violating R14.2b(2). IMO these are not related acts, so both penalties count. As to the place ultimately played from, R1.3b(2) absolves player from wrong place penalty for misjudgment as to actual location, assuming it was a reasonable guess on the player’s part.
  5. Bone up on which violations penalize only the player, and which penalize the side.
  6. The Preferred Lies local rule permits substituting since you are placing and not replacing. I believe the Committee can abolish substitution, but the base local rule allows it.
  7. After consultation with the USGA, it’s my understanding that each player is responsible for declaring their correct index and course handicap, but not responsible for the accuracy of allowances (playing handicap). Assuming players declare the appropriate course handicap (or accidentally declare a lower course handicap), any mistakes in applying the allowances are not subject to DQ — if you agree to a match status based on erroneous allowances, you’re stuck with that agreement irrespective of who made the honest error.
  8. I would “fight” myself to concentrate solely on the level of discomfort, and work hard to ignore the concept of which hole is coming up. If you can manage to to that, avoid manipulation, you’re home free. Good luck to you managing your irritating illness.
  9. It is incorrect to state that GUR must be defined as such by the Committee or a ref. Several conditions qualify even if the Committee is silent on the matter. (Not the OP’s condition though.) From the definition: Ground under repair also includes the following things, even if the Committee does not define them as such:
  10. So, maybe half the posters here think it is “bad, awful, illogical” to prohibit solo rounds from being posted, and half think the same about requiring them to be posted. Somewhere in that you might find reason to ease up just a bit on the heavy criticism.
  11. Oh boy. What I meant was that I agree that in the situation you outlined, playing along with someone didn’t have an impact (didn’t matter). But other times it has an impact. So, let’s keep with the new program since it helps sometimes. And you’re blowing smoke about the past 50 years. While it could have been better before, those that followed the rules had a valid handicap — just as those who follow the current rules do. Violate them because of your opinion and you are disrespecting all the other players who abide by a single set of procedures and you don’t have a valid handicap. When you join an international system, you can’t expect everything to be arranged to meet your personal preferences.
  12. Thank you. It was with this understanding that I made my comment in the 7th post of this thread. IMO it is how a scorecard should reflect yardages, it’s easy to make use of when playing.
  13. I agree that the video looks like a violation (unless the caddie was absentmindedly doing something else while standing there with whatever that was in her hands). Have you read the extensive Clarification (which essentially re-writes rather than clarifies the rule)? https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rulesarticles/clarifications-of-the-2019-rules-of-golf.html#rule10 Perhaps no ref was watching and no one on site reported it.
  14. 5.5a provides other examples of a player intending to strike a ball, but it not being a stroke or a practice stroke. For instance, hitting a stray range ball back to the range for the purpose of cleaning up the course.
  15. Discover which Allied Golf Association rated your course. Write to them and see if they’ll disclose the measurements they took from each rated tee. Then compare to the card. While it’s possible that the course has been changed, I would believe the Golf Association data, they are more likely to be up to date (they’re not trying to use up old scorecards) and be more accurate (no marketing value in lying). While you’re at it, check the slope/rating on the card with available online data!
  16. Let me try: ESAs are defined by government authorities. NPZs are defined by golf Committees. It is therefore possible to have an ESA on a course that the Committee (inappropriately) failed to designate as a NPZ, and of course it’s similarly possible to have a NPZ that is not an ESA. Get caught hitting a ball from a NPZ and you get a golf penalty. Get caught hitting a ball from an ESA and you risk a governmental penalty. Get caught hitting a ball from an ESA that’s a NPZ and risk both penalties. IMO one can and sometimes should use both sets of initials, just make sure you mean what you say. Thank you! I’ll be here all week!
  17. I don’t believe the question adequately described the situation. When an outside influence moves your ball, it’s fundamental to know of the player’s awareness. But beyond that debatable issue, I disagree with the word “obvious” in the above parenthetical statement, and would replace the whole phrase with “if it is reasonable to conclude from the available information that the ball is in its own pitch-mark.”
  18. You’ve outlined a particular situation when it doesn’t matter. That’s not important. On other occasions it will.
  19. I agree with everything you said, including your confusion as to the post-2019 outcome. If I had to make a ruling without RB clarification, I’d say no penalty at all based on the old Decision, and the fact that you can of course substitute a ball before you technically start a hole by making a stroke.
  20. Ultimately, it’s a subjective call. (I too suspect this is not a serious breach.) The definition offers some thoughts: Serious Breach In stroke play, when playing from a wrong place could give the player a significant advantage compared to the stroke to be made from the right place. In making this comparison to decide if there was a serious breach, the factors to be taken into account include: The difficulty of the stroke, The distance of the ball from the hole, The effect of obstacles on the line of play, and The conditions affecting the stroke. The concept of a serious breach does not apply in match play, because a player loses the hole if he or she plays from a wrong place.
  21. A DQ would only be appropriate for a wrong place/serious breach. Perhaps/likely only a 2sp for wrong place (on top of the E-5 penalty). Either way, a hell of a thing to get 4 penalty strokes for a ball one could have found!
  22. No, he may not do that. If the ball was in sand, he would be required to recreate the lie, but not otherwise.
  23. If someone/something moves your ball, in my (and the Rules) opinion the replacement should not be subject to the randomness of a drop. It should be a replacement (as the rules prescribe). If you have to guess at what the previous lie was, well, that’s the best we can do.
  24. I just want to say, as 16.3a(2) says, “If the player cannot tell for sure whether the ball is in its own pitch-mark or a pitch-mark made by another ball, the player may treat the ball as embedded if it is reasonable to conclude from the available information that the ball is in its own pitch-mark.”
×
×
  • Create New...