Nonconforming Hole Liners

[Hawkeye77]

> @turtlekc said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > Was actually peeved at the suggestion they not be used.

> >

>

> I feel for you Hawk. That's just so wrong!

>

The like button is magically back! Yep, finally decided to have a friendly, diplomatic conversation and it was a friendly one, but there was not even a little consideration. I'll move on now, no pity party, lol. And in the course of a week of golf, maybe 72 holes for me minimum in the summer, the lip outs and issues with the darn things not even being put in right are only 4-5 strokes total, but darn it is frustrating to see that happen and it gets in your head sometimes. I don't need the hole to seem any smaller, lol.

[augustgolf]

Just slam dunk 'em from the fairway like tigger and it's all a moot point. What is a moot anyway?

[Hawkeye77]

I think you mean "Moop" bubble boy! (Seinfeld reference - with the new site I'm not sure I can get up the You Tube I want to post). Not bragging, honestly not, but I my two holes in one the summer of 2013 happened with those things in, maybe they helped. ;-)

[KevCarter]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> I think you mean "Moop" bubble boy! (Seinfeld reference - with the new site I'm not sure I can get up the You Tube I want to post). Not bragging, honestly not, but I my two holes in one the summer of 2013 happened with those things in, maybe they helped. ;-)

 

Copy the link in YouTube. Paste the link here. Remove the "S" in "HTTPS".

 

[Imp]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @turtlekc said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > Was actually peeved at the suggestion they not be used.

> > >

> >

> > I feel for you Hawk. That's just so wrong!

> >

> The like button is magically back! Yep, finally decided to have a friendly, diplomatic conversation and it was a friendly one, but there was not even a little consideration. I'll move on now, no pity party, lol. And in the course of a week of golf, maybe 72 holes for me minimum in the summer, the lip outs and issues with the darn things not even being put in right are only 4-5 strokes total, but darn it is frustrating to see that happen and it gets in your head sometimes. I don't need the hole to seem any smaller, lol.

 

I still think my suggestion in 2014 should be considered. Contact your state Golf Association. Explain the issue. See if anyone there can hear the plight of a rules follower, and ask for suggestions.

 

--kC

[Hawkeye77]

> @Imp said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > Was actually peeved at the suggestion they not be used.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I feel for you Hawk. That's just so wrong!

> > >

> > The like button is magically back! Yep, finally decided to have a friendly, diplomatic conversation and it was a friendly one, but there was not even a little consideration. I'll move on now, no pity party, lol. And in the course of a week of golf, maybe 72 holes for me minimum in the summer, the lip outs and issues with the darn things not even being put in right are only 4-5 strokes total, but darn it is frustrating to see that happen and it gets in your head sometimes. I don't need the hole to seem any smaller, lol.

>

> I still think my suggestion in 2014 should be considered. Contact your state Golf Association. Explain the issue. See if anyone there can hear the plight of a rules follower, and ask for suggestions.

>

> --kC

LOL, the course dropped its membership with the state golf association. Short term way to save a tiny bit of cash, and IMO not a very classy move for some other reasons not worth getting into on here, but anyway, not a member. They claim because of the fact the course's rating is off and out of date that they will be joining again this year (cheaper for rating services if you are a member) - so . . . . . that conversation is likely if they do! So your suggestion may become possible.

[bladehunter]

Encountered a liner this weekend that was not installed low enough. It spit a dead center 12 ft putt back at me. Heard an audible “tink” ( metal liner) and ball stopped on the right front lip. I did not raise the issue as I am not sure what the ruling should be. So I took it as is. Weirdest thing too. It was a putt that I knew was in from 3 ft out. And it just came back at me. I’d say speed was 20 inches past hole if that. Not at all smoking. Just good speed to hold its line ( straight putt with grain to go through ).

[Imp]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @Imp said:

> > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > Was actually peeved at the suggestion they not be used.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I feel for you Hawk. That's just so wrong!

> > > >

> > > The like button is magically back! Yep, finally decided to have a friendly, diplomatic conversation and it was a friendly one, but there was not even a little consideration. I'll move on now, no pity party, lol. And in the course of a week of golf, maybe 72 holes for me minimum in the summer, the lip outs and issues with the darn things not even being put in right are only 4-5 strokes total, but darn it is frustrating to see that happen and it gets in your head sometimes. I don't need the hole to seem any smaller, lol.

> >

> > I still think my suggestion in 2014 should be considered. Contact your state Golf Association. Explain the issue. See if anyone there can hear the plight of a rules follower, and ask for suggestions.

> >

> > --kC

> LOL, the course dropped its membership with the state golf association. Short term way to save a tiny bit of cash, and IMO not a very classy move for some other reasons not worth getting into on here, but anyway, not a member. They claim because of the fact the course's rating is off and out of date that they will be joining again this year (cheaper for rating services if you are a member) - so . . . . . that conversation is likely if they do! So your suggestion may become possible.

 

Wow. Ok, so part of the discussion for the re-rating should be legality of the liners making the hole thinner and non-compliant. :)

[Hawkeye77]

> @Imp said:

> > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > @Imp said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > @turtlekc said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > Was actually peeved at the suggestion they not be used.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I feel for you Hawk. That's just so wrong!

> > > > >

> > > > The like button is magically back! Yep, finally decided to have a friendly, diplomatic conversation and it was a friendly one, but there was not even a little consideration. I'll move on now, no pity party, lol. And in the course of a week of golf, maybe 72 holes for me minimum in the summer, the lip outs and issues with the darn things not even being put in right are only 4-5 strokes total, but darn it is frustrating to see that happen and it gets in your head sometimes. I don't need the hole to seem any smaller, lol.

> > >

> > > I still think my suggestion in 2014 should be considered. Contact your state Golf Association. Explain the issue. See if anyone there can hear the plight of a rules follower, and ask for suggestions.

> > >

> > > --kC

> > LOL, the course dropped its membership with the state golf association. Short term way to save a tiny bit of cash, and IMO not a very classy move for some other reasons not worth getting into on here, but anyway, not a member. They claim because of the fact the course's rating is off and out of date that they will be joining again this year (cheaper for rating services if you are a member) - so . . . . . that conversation is likely if they do! So your suggestion may become possible.

>

> Wow. Ok, so part of the discussion for the re-rating should be legality of the liners making the hole thinner and non-compliant. :)

Yep. I figure as long as they are there working on the re-rating (if it happens) there will be opportunities for "education", i.e., they can explain to the course why it should preserve the integrity of its rating and using the USGA handicap system, etc. Really the only option at this point, but have taken the way too long view so far, lol.

[BermBuster]

will this work?

[Mr. Bean]

A disposable toilet seat..?

[BermBuster]

lol. It's an azz gasket that lines a hole. sort of.

[Hawkeye77]

OK, back to a more palatable discussion . . . .

 

For now they are out! Not sure how long that will last and appears to have been done in a highly begrudging way, lol, I made the apparent mistake of expressing nothing more than a very sincere "thanks" (oh we'll see, if people complain they go back in, they make less work, I better hear that more like it than not, lol, but he's kind of that way hard to know how serious he really is). I'm optimistic and encouraging folks to let him know we love the course being played within the limits of the rules of golf and in a way that doesn't interfere with our games, i.e., just say "thanks" - sounds like a good motto. Hope springs eternal.

[LCC3721]

Those liners are “Approved by the USGA for. “Official USGA Handicaps.” And that’s how they are sold to course purchasers. So I wouldn’t focus your arguments based on them being against the rules but more about the quality of play being degraded by them.

[Hawkeye77]

> @LCC3721 said:

> Those liners are “Approved by the USGA for. “Official USGA Handicaps.” And that’s how they are sold to course purchasers. So I wouldn’t focus your arguments based on them being against the rules but more about the quality of play being degraded by them.

 

False advertising.

 

As stated above it took the argument about the rules/USGA to get the change made so I'd say the focus was correct.

[Newby]

> @LCC3721 said:

> Those liners are “Approved by the USGA for. “Official USGA Handicaps.” And that’s how they are sold to course purchasers. So I wouldn’t focus your arguments based on them being against the rules but more about the quality of play being degraded by them.

 

They are only approved for use if they are sunk 1" below the lip of the hole.

[Sawgrass]

> @LCC3721 said:

> Those liners are “Approved by the USGA for. “Official USGA Handicaps.” And that’s how they are sold to course purchasers. So I wouldn’t focus your arguments based on them being against the rules but more about the quality of play being degraded by them.

 

That BS line from the manufacturer is a distortion of the fact that players who are forced to play with the illegal liners should still post for handicap purposes.

[LCC3721]

its not false advertising, hundreds of courses use or have used these. And if you have bad soil composition, or not and just want an excuse, in your greens then the rules allow for these liners to placed up to but not above the putting surface.

 

I know they’re terrible but shaving time off daily tasks adds up big time over the course of a season and properly painting holes adds a decent amount of time in the long run. On top of extending the use of pin locations by a day or two and you can see why budget and staff stressed managers would be tempted by these pieces of garbage. There is a bigger issue at hand that’s making these courses use these things and it’s probably a staff or budget issue.

[Roadking2003]

"The greenkeeper who cuts the holes should make sure that the Rules of Golf are observed, especially the requirements that the hole not exceed 4 ¼ inches in outer diameter and that the hole-liner be sunk at least **one inch below the putting green surface**. "

 

https://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=143&Rule=16

[Hawkeye77]

 

> @LCC3721 said:

> its not false advertising, hundreds of courses use or have used these. And if you have bad soil composition, or not and just want an excuse, in your greens then the rules allow for these liners to placed up to but not above the putting surface.

>

> I know they’re terrible but shaving time off daily tasks adds up big time over the course of a season and properly painting holes adds a decent amount of time in the long run. On top of extending the use of pin locations by a day or two and you can see why budget and staff stressed managers would be tempted by these pieces of garbage. There is a bigger issue at hand that’s making these courses use these things and it’s probably a staff or budget issue.

 

What a bunch of BS. Hundreds of courses? You are simply making that up. And no, in decades of golf just about everywhere never seen them but a couple times. Oh, and they are illegal, lol, except for a certain soil conditions, which don't exist where I play, and pretty much no other course I've seen.

 

The cheapo ones I've seen would have little good effect if the soil is such it isn't going to stay put - way too flexible for any intended purpose under the rules. Might be some "real" ones out there that do that, but never seen them, and if a course really needs them, great.

[Newby]

This is an extract from the R&A Competition Guide.

_If a plastic cuff/rim is used, it is considered to be part of the holeliner, so it too must be sunk at least one inch (25mm) below the putting green surface, **unless the nature of the soil makes it impracticable to do so**._

 

[Newby]

**Sawgrass**

Can you post the notice about re-publishing that the USGA add to their responses. I get the impression that it is subtly different to the R&A's disclaimer which is specifically aimed at people who are not the 'intended recipient' (ie the addressee)

**Extract of relevant portion**

_This email is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify The R&A immediately. _

[Sawgrass]

> @Newby said:

> **Sawgrass**

> Can you post the notice about re-publishing that the USGA add to their responses. I get the impression that it is subtly different to the R&A's disclaimer which is specifically aimed at people who are not the 'intended recipient' (ie the addressee)

> **Extract of relevant portion**

> _This email is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify The R&A immediately. _

The phraseology of the USGA's current admonition (latest to me, at least) is:

 

"This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

 

[Hawkeye77]

Enough, lol.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Newby said:

> > **Sawgrass**

> > Can you post the notice about re-publishing that the USGA add to their responses. I get the impression that it is subtly different to the R&A's disclaimer which is specifically aimed at people who are not the 'intended recipient' (ie the addressee)

> > **Extract of relevant portion**

> > _This email is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify The R&A immediately. _

> The phraseology of the USGA's current admonition (latest to me, at least) is:

>

> "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

>

 

LOL... That's just short of "we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you" :)

[Newby]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Newby said:

> > **Sawgrass**

> > Can you post the notice about re-publishing that the USGA add to their responses. I get the impression that it is subtly different to the R&A's disclaimer which is specifically aimed at people who are not the 'intended recipient' (ie the addressee)

> > **Extract of relevant portion**

> > _This email is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify The R&A immediately. _

> The phraseology of the USGA's current admonition (latest to me, at least) is:

>

> "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

>

Interesting. I think the R&A used to have words to that effect but changed them many years ago.

In fact when I queried the clause at the time I received the following response.

_This is just a standard clause that is attached automatically to each email that we send.

I do not have a problem with you (sic) forwarding this information to others at your Club and even further afield, however, regarding the latter, my email addressed the particular points that you raised and I would not wish others to misinterpret it if slightly different circumstances apply._

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > **Sawgrass**

> > > Can you post the notice about re-publishing that the USGA add to their responses. I get the impression that it is subtly different to the R&A's disclaimer which is specifically aimed at people who are not the 'intended recipient' (ie the addressee)

> > > **Extract of relevant portion**

> > > _This email is strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, disclose, distribute or take any action in reliance on this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify The R&A immediately. _

> > The phraseology of the USGA's current admonition (latest to me, at least) is:

> >

> > "This response is for your personal information and may not be posted or disclosed by email or internet posting."

> >

> Interesting. I think the R&A used to have words to that effect but changed them many years ago.

> In fact when I queried the clause at the time I received the following response.

> _This is just a standard clause that is attached automatically to each email that we send.

> I do not have a problem with you (sic) forwarding this information to others at your Club and even further afield, however, regarding the latter, my email addressed the particular points that you raised and I would not wish others to misinterpret it if slightly different circumstances apply._

>

 

Isn't it tragic? Some people think that when they get an email answer to their query with that clause in the end they believe they are not allowed to tell anyone what was the content of that email. We have seen it here and I have seen it elsewhere as well.

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> This is an extract from the R&A Competition Guide.

> _If a plastic cuff/rim is used, it is considered to be part of the holeliner, so it too must be sunk at least one inch (25mm) below the putting green surface, **unless the nature of the soil makes it impracticable to do so**._

>

 

If a hole liner or plastic cuff or rim is at ground level you have made the hole smaller than 4.25" (unless they cut the hole larger than 4.25" then use a liner to reduce it to 4.25". I doubt this is ever done). There is no way that round of golf would be appropriate to post for handicap purposes.

[Newby]

It would seem that the RBs have no concern with the issue. However I have only ever seen them sitting a couple of mm or more below the soil level

[Hawkeye77]

> @Newby said:

> It would seem that the RBs have no concern with the issue. However I have only ever seen them sitting a couple of mm or more below the soil level

 

Maybe semantics (?), but I’m sure they would be concerned the rules are applied properly - but doubt this rule occupies any significant amount of their time.