Jump to content

davep043

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    5,962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by davep043

  1. I'd say my simplified explanation is still absolutely accurate. When taking free relief, you may stand wherever you want, EXCEPT specific areas where you may not stand. Yeah, learn the rules. Yes, the Rules can be complicated at times, but this one isn't too bad. NPZ's, building a stance, free relief come to mind as limiting where you may stand.
  2. This could be it, I call them survey whiskers. The nails are sold separately. https://www.homedepot.com/p/Mutual-Industries-6-in-Glo-Orange-Stake-Whiskers-500-per-Box-15900-145/306650382?mtc=Shopping-B-F_D25T-B-D25T-025_001_HAND_TOOLS-NA-NA-NA-SMART-NA-NA-HandTools&cm_mmc=Shopping-B-F_D25T-B-D25T-025_001_HAND_TOOLS-NA-NA-NA-SMART-NA-NA-HandTools-71700000086134211-58700007341211183-92700065813630038&msclkid=6b2e2fea4aee13bbce074e426300226c&gclid=6b2e2fea4aee13bbce074e426300226c&gclsrc=3p.ds
  3. Rule 17.1e(2) requires the player to take Relief when a ball is in a PA, not in the NPZ, and the NPZ interferes with his stance or swing. Although MLR E-8.2 restates the requirements from 17.1e(1), but doesn't restate 17.1e(2), I'd say e(2) would still apply. For @jobin, I'd say the rules do sort this all out, as @TerpFangolfer has indicated. From a simplistic standpoint, you may stand anywhere you choose, except specific areas where you are not permitted to stand. You are not permitted to build a stance, or to otherwise alter the Conditions Affecting the Stroke.
  4. Even in the photo you provided, I can see a differentiation between bunker and surrounding area, at least in the bunker closest to the camera. Perhaps there's some rootmat in the natural areas that has been removed for the bunkers. As you say, this was dealt with in 2014, and I know that other significant events have been held on Pinehurst courses since then. The same issues will need to be addressed at Pine Needles next year. The biggest potential problem I remember from my rounds over the last couple of weeks are the areas where the motorized rakes enter and leave the bunkers, the lip seems to be worn or become indistinct. I'd assume that this will be solved by hand-raking all bunkers and allowing the lips to recover.
  5. I agree with you, but I believe @rogolf was questioning @Newby suggestion to apply a penalty score. Rule 7.1b in the Rules of Handicapping discuss the Committee's authority to enter a Penalty Score into the player's scoring record if the player is found to have not entered a score when required to do so. In this case, the player quit after 5 holes, and doesn't appear to have done so as a method of manipulating his handicap. He hasn't played enough holes to be required to enter even a 9-hole score, so I'm with @rogolf, I don't see a basis for entering a Penalty Score.
  6. I was a volunteer Marshal for the 2014 US Open, and happened to be around watching practice early in the week. I saw a group of maybe a dozen Rules Officials who were being instructed as to how to determine the limits of bunkers. It was similar to what you describe, bunkers do (or did at the time) have a fairly clearly defined boundary of turf, although its not all closely mown. I certainly don't know the course as well as you do, but I don't remember seeing any areas where the limits of the bunkers weren't reasonably clear.
  7. I believe this is correct, but the practice of "lift-smooth-replace" isn't contained in any acceptable Local Rule. I suppose that the Preferred Lies rule could be adapted to use within sandy portions of the General Area.
  8. They enact a totally unacceptable local rule allowing lift-smooth-place. Saves them buying enough rakes for the 10,000 acres (slight exaggeration) of sandy areas on the course.
  9. I just got back from 2 weeks there, and only recall one course having that rule, Tobacco Road. Most had reasonably defined bunkers, as well as other sandy portions of the General Area.
  10. At my club, there are a couple of large-ish groups that I can play in, they typically reserve two to four tee times each weekend day. Occasionally, someone will misbehave badly enough that he's no longer invited to play with one (or both) of those groups. The guy usually gets one warning, then he's simply out, no more invitations. If he does get invited back after a while, the fuse is REALLY short.
  11. One thing you've left out is that the system is not being used as intended. Players are not posting non-competition scores, despite the encouragement from the handicapping authorities. If not used correctly, any system is going to be problematic. From what I read, the biggest concerns in Ireland stem from the change from the previous "ratchet" system to the current averaging system. I don't know what the Argentinian system did previously, so I can't comment on that. The PCC is based on the scores posted by people playing on the same course on the same date, that's as applicable as anything you'll get. Personally, I've seen only 4 this year, for about 80 rounds posted.
  12. I've played the same kind of format, it tends to equalize things a bit. Better teams play a harder course. I don't take scrambles seriously, but when you can make the scores a little closer, it lets everyone have a little better chance.
  13. As with many potential exceptions that might be made, its important to be able to clearly write an enforceable rule, and I'm not sure where the line should be drawn in these cases. To me, this is best left the way it is now. The Rule is perfectly clear, perfectly enforceable, and consistent with other instances where a nonconforming club is used for a stroke. As vocal as Rory has been at times, I never heard a peep from him about his DQ.
  14. I'd say its a matter of consistency. The penalty for making a stroke with any non-conforming club is DQ, regardless of reason the reason the club is non-conforming, regardless of the player's intent. Tape or other "stick-ons" are simply and clearly not allowed. I think to define differing penalties based on intent, or type of non-conformance would needlessly complicate the rules.
  15. The Rule as it stands is clear, you can't apply any type of tape or similar material to the face of a club, if you do its non-conforming. Can you suggest a way to write a rule that differentiates between these dots and any other type of tape or coating that a player could apply to the clubface?
  16. How are players to learn about the Rules if more knowledgeable player's don't help them? I wouldn't constantly be telling someone about every infraction, but this is a simple one to handle.
  17. I can imagine someone who is unaware of the rule, as the OP was, making an adjustment, and a playing companion making him aware of the rule before he uses the club. If all he's told is "You can't do that", after he's already done that, where does he go? Does he walk off thinking he's DQ, does he add Penalty Strokes? To me its better to let him know the entire Rule, and to refer him so he can read it for himself.
  18. Not accurate, the DQ penalty only applies if you make a stroke using that club. The Exception to 4.1a(3) says that if you return it to its original condition, you may then use the club with no penalty.
  19. This is from Rule 4.1a(3): "A player must not make a stroke with a club whose performance characteristics he or she deliberately changed during the round " Seems pretty clear to me, you can't adjust your club once you've started your round. The penalty for using a club that has been adjusted is Disqualification. If you return it to its original position before you use it, there's no penalty.
  20. I'll go all the way back to the original question. If it was me, I would probably spend the money. I might look around at used clubs, maybe find something that fits what I'm looking for at less than full retail price. I know there are a couple of places in town there. That's just me. Separately, keep your eyes open for someone who looks just like my avatar, except with a lot more gray. I'll be in the area for two weeks, arriving on Friday.
  21. If we look at Section 1.3 of the Handicap Rules, the player is expected to post acceptable scores as soon as possible. Its not just your opinion (and mine as well), that's what the rules expect from each player. And I agree that these scores are acceptable, even with the "local rules" in place as described.
  22. You're right, it might be exactly the same as if he was following the rules.
  23. I had thought that most of those who were opposed to counting fourball and match play scores were from regions where those have historically not been acceptable for handicaps. On looking back, I do see a few who would prefer to change the USGA rules in that direction. Personally, that's not a change I would encourage. I'd prefer to move closer to the model where handicaps include Competition scores, as well as "casual" scores which are pre-registered and attested. I know that would face a great deal of opposition, but I believe it would address a lot of the allegations of sandbagging.
  24. The Rules in the areas under USGA handicap authority REQUIRE you to post fourball and match play scores, if you didn't post them you wouldn't deserve to have any handicap. In parts of the world where those scores have historically not been posted, most clubs and courses allow the players ample opportunities to play in appropriately formatted competitions. Its not appropriate to apply THOSE posting Rules to the playing habits of people within the USGA jurisdictions.
  25. In my eyes, accuracy means you're following the rules in effect wherever you live. That way, you're competing on an even basis with the rest of the folks in your area. That's the purpose of a handicap, to allow reasonably fair competition. When an individual decides that the rules don't apply to him, he's making his handicap inaccurate.
×
×
  • Create New...