USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Sawgrass]

The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

I assure you that problems do exist when it comes to players understanding the long list of conditions as to when a re-drop is required. Dropping from any height, and the associated requirement that the dropped ball stay within the parameters of the drop location when it comes to rest, is a change which simplifies things.

[jslane57]

The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

I assure you that problems do exist when it comes to players understanding the long list of conditions as to when a re-drop is required. Dropping from any height, and the associated requirement that the dropped ball stay within the parameters of the drop location when it comes to rest, is a change which simplifies things.

I'm on the fence with drop. Yes it will speed up drops. But the part I don't like is the losing of chance. How? When debating on taking relief from a cart path, or choosing to take an unplayable, there is always a chance you will drop into a crummy lie. If the chance of hitting into a divot (in your fairway) is part of the game, so should be the chance of the drop not working out perfectly.

[Augster]

The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

I assure you that problems do exist when it comes to players understanding the long list of conditions as to when a re-drop is required. Dropping from any height, and the associated requirement that the dropped ball stay within the parameters of the drop location when it comes to rest, is a change which simplifies things.

 

This.

 

Plus the bonus of pace of play. I ripped a hook into a red hazard today. The hazard has a steep bank down to the line and the PLC. I measured my two CL's. I needed to drop as close as possible to the mark at the end of the two CL's to have any chance of advancing the ball and not standing in the water to do so. Drop 1 rolls all the way down the slope, slowly, and enters the hazard. Retrieve. Drop 2 rolls all the way down the slope, slowly, and enters the hazard. I retrieve and then place on the spot. I bet the whole thing took 2 minutes.

 

By 2019 rules, being able to drop from barely above the grass, I would have quickly measured my 80", as I don't need to be exacting, and low dropped on a spot. In the two minutes I used retrieving and dropping, I'd have dropped, played, and likely walked to my next shot.

 

The whole time I was going through the process I was thinking, "Good Lord this is going to be so much quicker in 2019." In most cases, I likely won't even measure the 80" thus saving more time.

 

After the Lexi fiasco and Goydos claiming "they all do that", maybe they will bring back continuous putting. They are allowing spike mark tap downs, so continuous putting won't be such a big deal if you have to stand in someone else's line.

 

AND continuous putting would save MASSIVE amounts of time on the green.

[Sawgrass]

The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

I assure you that problems do exist when it comes to players understanding the long list of conditions as to when a re-drop is required. Dropping from any height, and the associated requirement that the dropped ball stay within the parameters of the drop location when it comes to rest, is a change which simplifies things.

I'm on the fence with drop. Yes it will speed up drops. But the part I don't like is the losing of chance. How? When debating on taking relief from a cart path, or choosing to take an unplayable, there is always a chance you will drop into a crummy lie. If the chance of hitting into a divot (in your fairway) is part of the game, so should be the chance of the drop not working out perfectly.

 

If the proposal is accepted as it is, the new requirement will be that you only get to drop within 20 inches of the nearest point of relief, and of course as I mentioned it must stay within that 20 inches. So perhaps your disappointment with the elimination of some randomness will be mitigated by the fact that you can't stray as far as you used to. It's currently a club length, about 45 inches, and perhaps almost two club lengths further the ball can stray. Almost 135 inches of possibility vs. the new 20 inches. But I get what you're saying regarding the attractiveness of randomness.

[nsxguy]

The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

I assure you that problems do exist when it comes to players understanding the long list of conditions as to when a re-drop is required. Dropping from any height, and the associated requirement that the dropped ball stay within the parameters of the drop location when it comes to rest, is a change which simplifies things.

 

This.

 

Plus the bonus of pace of play. I ripped a hook into a red hazard today. The hazard has a steep bank down to the line and the PLC. I measured my two CL's. I needed to drop as close as possible to the mark at the end of the two CL's to have any chance of advancing the ball and not standing in the water to do so. Drop 1 rolls all the way down the slope, slowly, and enters the hazard. Retrieve. Drop 2 rolls all the way down the slope, slowly, and enters the hazard. I retrieve and then place on the spot. I bet the whole thing took 2 minutes.

 

By 2019 rules, being able to drop from barely above the grass, I would have quickly measured my 80", as I don't need to be exacting, and low dropped on a spot. In the two minutes I used retrieving and dropping, I'd have dropped, played, and likely walked to my next shot.

 

The whole time I was going through the process I was thinking, "Good Lord this is going to be so much quicker in 2019." In most cases, I likely won't even measure the 80" thus saving more time.

 

After the Lexi fiasco and Goydos claiming "they all do that", maybe they will bring back continuous putting. They are allowing spike mark tap downs, so continuous putting won't be such a big deal if you have to stand in someone else's line.

 

AND continuous putting would save MASSIVE amounts of time on the green.

 

Continuous putting wouldn't have changed Lexi's fate,,,,,,,,,,, unless the rule disallowed marking after the first putt. She did "continuous putt".

 

And "massive" amounts of time ? I don't think so. If the player who just putted taps it in, assuming it's close enough, he'll just do it, even now.

 

And it it's not "close enough" to just tap it in, he/she is likely to mark, replace, and go through the routine all over again.

 

Time saved ? Not much. And certainly not "massive".

[North Butte]

I took Augster's point to be that the Rules ought to mandate you may only mark your ball once per green. "Continuous putting" would mean no remarking.

 

Not going to happen but a man can dream, can't he?

[DavePelz4]

We played on Saturday after having rain most of the week. The course was soft as to be expected and several bunkers had standing water in them. Unfortunately, I found one of those bunkers with the water and knew that the corresponding drop that was going to take place would leave a buried lie.

 

It did...with 3/4's of the ball covered by the sand. It took 2 shots to extricate myself from the trap on the way to a solid double bogey. I thought about the new drop rule and would have welcomed that on Saturday.

[VNutz]

We played on Saturday after having rain most of the week. The course was soft as to be expected and several bunkers had standing water in them. Unfortunately, I found one of those bunkers with the water and knew that the corresponding drop that was going to take place would leave a buried lie.

 

It did...with 3/4's of the ball covered by the sand. It took 2 shots to extricate myself from the trap on the way to a solid double bogey. I thought about the new drop rule and would have welcomed that on Saturday.

 

But what about the other 6 bunkers??

[Augster]

I took Augster's point to be that the Rules ought to mandate you may only mark your ball once per green. "Continuous putting" would mean no remarking.

 

Not going to happen but a man can dream, can't he?

 

This.

 

It'd save massive amounts of time. You played on a dewy morning and picked up grass on the ball you'd like to clean off? Too bad. Just put sand on the green after aeration? Make a local rule that allows cleaning and pulling out of aeration holes for a short time until the greens heal.

 

It's definitely a dream, and how I always try to play, but sometimes you will have to stand in others lines and by the current rules, it's bad form to do so.

[nsxguy]

I took Augster's point to be that the Rules ought to mandate you may only mark your ball once per green. "Continuous putting" would mean no remarking.

 

Not going to happen but a man can dream, can't he?

 

This.

 

It'd save massive amounts of time. You played on a dewy morning and picked up grass on the ball you'd like to clean off? Too bad. Just put sand on the green after aeration? Make a local rule that allows cleaning and pulling out of aeration holes for a short time until the greens heal.

 

It's definitely a dream, and how I always try to play, but sometimes you will have to stand in others lines and by the current rules, it's bad form to do so.

 

Doesn't matter if they remark or not.

 

If it's not close enough to tap it in they're still going through all the motions; the read, the practice stroke(s), everything except the remark. Took Lexi all of what ?

 

Then again, I have no idea how many seconds are in a massive. :dntknw:

[Shilgy]

I admit this is a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because most players do not understand, they do not know how loud their music really is(I prefer to think of it that way rather than saying they do not care what others think). But in the op the music rule change was not mentioned-nor is it listed on the summary on the USGA page on the proposed changes.

 

This is from a Q&A with Craig Winter-USGA director of rules and amateur status:

Golfdom: I’m seeing more and more people with music in their golf carts, and I might be one of them. Why did the USGA and the R&A feel compelled to touch on this topic?

Winter: Well, we do call this the “rules modernization initiative,” and I think this is one of many changes that (if) you look at the way the game is played today, it’s not the same as it was played in the past. The prohibition was introduced only in 2014 by decision. We have a rule in golf that limits how golfers can use artificial devices. This is really just a recognition that if you want to listen to music on the golf course because you want to be entertained, that’s OK. But we still have a line in the sand that says, look, if you’re doing it to help with your tempo, to relax you, to eliminate distractions — we still don’t want artificial devices to be able to assist you, so that particular use would still be a prohibition.

 

 

What do you all think of this? Pretty useless if the player can just say it's "for entertainment" and be allowed.

[Sawgrass]

I admit this is a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because most players do not understand, they do not know how loud their music really is(I prefer to think of it that way rather than saying they do not care what others think). But in the op the music rule change was not mentioned-nor is it listed on the summary on the USGA page on the proposed changes.

 

This is from a Q&A with Craig Winter-USGA director of rules and amateur status:

Golfdom: I’m seeing more and more people with music in their golf carts, and I might be one of them. Why did the USGA and the R&A feel compelled to touch on this topic?

Winter: Well, we do call this the “rules modernization initiative,” and I think this is one of many changes that (if) you look at the way the game is played today, it’s not the same as it was played in the past. The prohibition was introduced only in 2014 by decision. We have a rule in golf that limits how golfers can use artificial devices. This is really just a recognition that if you want to listen to music on the golf course because you want to be entertained, that’s OK. But we still have a line in the sand that says, look, if you’re doing it to help with your tempo, to relax you, to eliminate distractions — we still don’t want artificial devices to be able to assist you, so that particular use would still be a prohibition.

 

 

What do you all think of this? Pretty useless if the player can just say it's "for entertainment" and be allowed.

 

All I can say for sure is that I anxiously await the new equivalent of the Decisions book so we can see what's what. (But updating that at this time, without a firm idea of what the Rules will actually end up being, would of course be fruitless.)

[bladehunter]

I admit this is a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because most players do not understand, they do not know how loud their music really is(I prefer to think of it that way rather than saying they do not care what others think). But in the op the music rule change was not mentioned-nor is it listed on the summary on the USGA page on the proposed changes.

 

This is from a Q&A with Craig Winter-USGA director of rules and amateur status:

Golfdom: I’m seeing more and more people with music in their golf carts, and I might be one of them. Why did the USGA and the R&A feel compelled to touch on this topic?

Winter: Well, we do call this the “rules modernization initiative,” and I think this is one of many changes that (if) you look at the way the game is played today, it’s not the same as it was played in the past. The prohibition was introduced only in 2014 by decision. We have a rule in golf that limits how golfers can use artificial devices. This is really just a recognition that if you want to listen to music on the golf course because you want to be entertained, that’s OK. But we still have a line in the sand that says, look, if you’re doing it to help with your tempo, to relax you, to eliminate distractions — we still don’t want artificial devices to be able to assist you, so that particular use would still be a prohibition.

 

 

What do you all think of this? Pretty useless if the player can just say it's "for entertainment" and be allowed.

 

 

interested in this as well... i can tell you without a doubt that myself with ear buds in could get into a groove quick and likely help my score quite a bit with some tempo helping tunes.... I actually am a person who has a tune in his head all the time if im calm ... but its those heated times that music would help to calm down and retain my slow tempo... I hope it isnt allowed.... its surely cheating as much as vasaline on the driver face

[Roadking2003]

By 2019 rules, being able to drop from barely above the grass, I would have quickly measured my 80", as I don't need to be exacting, and low dropped on a spot. In the two minutes I used retrieving and dropping, I'd have dropped, played, and likely walked to my next shot.

 

The whole time I was going through the process I was thinking, "Good Lord this is going to be so much quicker in 2019." In most cases, I likely won't even measure the 80" thus saving more time.

 

I fail to see how the 80" rule would save even one second of time. And if you don't need to measure the 80", you shouldn't need to measure two club lengths.

 

 

After the Lexi fiasco and Goydos claiming "they all do that", maybe they will bring back continuous putting. They are allowing spike mark tap downs, so continuous putting won't be such a big deal if you have to stand in someone else's line.

 

AND continuous putting would save MASSIVE amounts of time on the green.

 

Do you really think professionals would not mark their ball even with continuous putting?

[Augster]

By 2019 rules, being able to drop from barely above the grass, I would have quickly measured my 80", as I don't need to be exacting, and low dropped on a spot. In the two minutes I used retrieving and dropping, I'd have dropped, played, and likely walked to my next shot.

 

The whole time I was going through the process I was thinking, "Good Lord this is going to be so much quicker in 2019." In most cases, I likely won't even measure the 80" thus saving more time.

 

I fail to see how the 80" rule would save even one second of time. And if you don't need to measure the 80", you shouldn't need to measure two club lengths.

 

 

After the Lexi fiasco and Goydos claiming "they all do that", maybe they will bring back continuous putting. They are allowing spike mark tap downs, so continuous putting won't be such a big deal if you have to stand in someone else's line.

 

AND continuous putting would save MASSIVE amounts of time on the green.

 

Do you really think professionals would not mark their ball even with continuous putting?

 

Trolling on a Saturday night with double quotes? Impressive. I'll take a look under the bridge.

 

I think you've taken my thoughts out of context. In this version of continuous putting you would not be allowed to mark after you started.

 

About the "save one second of time" thing, I could let you think about it for a while, but I'll just tell you to save time.

 

In 2019 we won't have to measure, for the most part, if you aren't trying to drop at the extreme of 80". Because one will not be allowed to PLACE the ball in 2019, it'll behoove the player to low drop in a valid spot.

 

As it is currently, every drop I am trying to get to place the ball. That means measuring accurately with whatever club I feel will give me the best chance of rolling outside of 2 club lengths, and also trying to pick a spot the ball will likely bounce closer to the hole than the NPR or the PLC. Then dropping twice, retrieving the ball, dropping again, retrieving the ball, and placing into a perfect lie in the dropped spot. That all takes time.

 

In 2019, I'll just be able to pick a spot easily eyeballed within the 80", or 20", and low drop on that spot. Once. If it bounces closer to the hole, I'm going to have to keep dropping to infinity, nearly, because placing won't be an option like it is now.

 

I do understand that not everyone goes for a perfect, placed lie on each drop. But I do because more often than not it's a huge advantage to do so. A very small amount of the time am I dropping from a sprinkler or casual water in the fairway. Most of the time it is unplayable lies in horrendous areas and drops in the rough after hitting into hazards. On a fairway drop, I just drop. So it's fast. Drops in the rough, I go through the process every single time.

 

So there's a little more to it besides measuring 80" instead of 2 CL. But I'm sure you've pieced that together shortly after your post.

[Roadking2003]

Trolling on a Saturday night with double quotes? Impressive. I'll take a look under the bridge.

 

Impressed with double quotes? Get a life.

 

 

About the "save one second of time" thing, I could let you think about it for a while, but I'll just tell you to save time.

 

In 2019 we won't have to measure, for the most part, if you aren't trying to drop at the extreme of 80". Because one will not be allowed to PLACE the ball in 2019, it'll behoove the player to low drop in a valid spot.

 

I don't have to measure today. It's very easy to estimate one or two clubs. In fact, it's easier than measuring 80". So, no time saved.

 

As it is currently, every drop I am trying to get to place the ball. That means measuring accurately with whatever club I feel will give me the best chance of rolling outside of 2 club lengths, and also trying to pick a spot the ball will likely bounce closer to the hole than the NPR or the PLC. Then dropping twice, retrieving the ball, dropping again, retrieving the ball, and placing into a perfect lie in the dropped spot. That all takes time.

 

In 2019, I'll just be able to pick a spot easily eyeballed within the 80", or 20", and low drop on that spot. Once. If it bounces closer to the hole, I'm going to have to keep dropping to infinity, nearly, because placing won't be an option like it is now.

 

Dropping from one inch is an improvement and might save a minuscule amount of time. So that's an improvement. Re dropping today might take me 30 - 60 seconds. I doubt that I re-drop even once per round. So at best this change will save me 30 seconds per round.

 

But I can eyeball two clubs just as easy as 80" and 20", so that changes saves zero time.

 

I do understand that not everyone goes for a perfect, placed lie on each drop. But I do because more often than not it's a huge advantage to do so. A very small amount of the time am I dropping from a sprinkler or casual water in the fairway. Most of the time it is unplayable lies in horrendous areas and drops in the rough after hitting into hazards. On a fairway drop, I just drop. So it's fast. Drops in the rough, I go through the process every single time.

 

So there's a little more to it besides measuring 80" instead of 2 CL. But I'm sure you've pieced that together shortly after your post.

 

If you are dropping that many times during a round of golf, you should work on your accuracy. Keep the ball in play and you will improve your score and your pace of play. For most of us, today's rule isn't a problem because we don't drop enough times to have it affect our pace of play.

 

Bottom line; Dropping from one inch is an improvement and might save less than a minute per round. But the 80" vs. two clubs rule will save NO time whatsoever.

[Vindog]

I agree that moving to 20 / 80 inches won't save much time for the regular golfer, but what they are reportedly trying to achieve here is getting the drop spot closer to the area of NPR/free relief.

[Sawgrass]

The switch from 1cl and 2cls to 20" and 80" will most definitely:

 

1) remove any drop-area relative disadvantage for people who happen to have shorter clubs

2) limit the area/choices for every drop, in that 20" and 80" are considerably shorter, and provide fewer square feet in which to drop, than 1cl and 2cls provide

3) the associated acceptance of "best effort" drops which might be slightly further than 20" or 80" might save a lot of time in that no club really needs to be used in measuring. People frequently want to get the most distance from the NPR, and currently people need to go pull their driver to identify that furthest point. That won't be required, and might sometimes even preclude a long walk back to the cart for the driver or long putter prior to the stroke.

[Vindog]

The switch from 1cl and 2cls to 20" and 80" will most definitely:

 

1) remove any drop-area relative disadvantage for people who happen to have shorter clubs

2) limit the area/choices for every drop, in that 20" and 80" are considerably shorter, and provide fewer square feet in which to drop, than 1cl and 2cls provide

3) the associated acceptance of "best effort" drops which might be slightly further than 20" or 80" might save a lot of time in that no club really needs to be used in measuring. People frequently want to get the most distance from the NPR, and currently people need to go pull their driver to identify that furthest point. That won't be required, and might sometimes even preclude a long walk back to the cart for the driver or long putter prior to the stroke.

 

Good point I had not thought of that

[Shilgy]

I find it interesting that if you send an email to the USGA about these changes that their response to your comment or question is:

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

[larrybud]

While I'm for simplifying the rules, none of this will speed up play AT ALL. Why? Because the vast majority of slow play is due to tee times with too short of an interval, poor course setup and poor (read: too hard) course design that juniors can't play, ladies can't play, and 90% of the golfing public can't play. USGA rules won't address (nor can they) address any of those. And they wonder why the game isn't growing.

 

The casual golfer isn't following the current rules anyway. Nobody is going back to the last spot if they can't find their ball, guys are rolling it out of divots all over the place, nobody is measuring 2 CL and re-dropping etc. Sure, some guys might be looking for balls for too long, but a change of a 5 to a 3 in a rule book isn't going to change that.

 

Quick story about tee time intervals. I play a course called Fieldstone which used to have Monday qualifiers for the Buick Open. They rerouted their back 9, which now begins with a par 3. Playing on my league the other night, starting on 10, and it's clear tee times are too close together. The starter is wanting us to wave up the group behind so he can stay on time. I told him they're quickly figuring out that they can't have tee times closer together than the time it takes to play the first hole. After all, a par 3 is a great regulator of tee times. You can have only 1 group on it at a time playing (which of course he was trying to circumvent). Par 4s and 5s you get a bit of a buffer to fake the starter and the course management thinking they're OK.

[Roadking2003]

While I'm for simplifying the rules, none of this will speed up play AT ALL. Why? Because the vast majority of slow play is due to tee times with too short of an interval, poor course setup and poor (read: too hard) course design that juniors can't play, ladies can't play, and 90% of the golfing public can't play. USGA rules won't address (nor can they) address any of those. And they wonder why the game isn't growing.

 

The casual golfer isn't following the current rules anyway. Nobody is going back to the last spot if they can't find their ball, guys are rolling it out of divots all over the place, nobody is measuring 2 CL and re-dropping etc. Sure, some guys might be looking for balls for too long, but a change of a 5 to a 3 in a rule book isn't going to change that.

 

 

This is true. But fixing slow play is quite easy and doesn't need a rules change. All you need is a marshall with the authority to tell a group to skip a hole.

[larrybud]

You're missing the point. Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole. Every foursome is going to have slow holes and then catch back up. But when courses have no time buffer between groups, a single group falling behind for a couple of minutes ripples through the rest of the field and the field will never catch up, and a marshall isn't going to be able to do jack squat when there's 3 groups on a par 3 and no place to go.

 

It's exactly like driving in rush hour traffic. One extra car merges in a half mile in front of you and it slows every other car down behind, until the traffic is light enough where there's a space buffer.

[Roadking2003]

You're missing the point. Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole. Every foursome is going to have slow holes and then catch back up. But when courses have no time buffer between groups, a single group falling behind for a couple of minutes ripples through the rest of the field and the field will never catch up, and a marshall isn't going to be able to do jack squat when there's 3 groups on a par 3 and no place to go.

 

It's exactly like driving in rush hour traffic. One extra car merges in a half mile in front of you and it slows every other car down behind, until the traffic is light enough where there's a space buffer.

 

I understand what you are saying but don't agree with this part; "Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole"

 

Also, courses that have tee times less than 10 minutes apart will experience what you describe quite often.

[Matt J]

The only part of the changes I like is the lack of punishment for a ball moving on the green. Green speeds are so quick I find this necessary. The rest is solutions to problems that don't exist.

[Sawgrass]

The only part of the changes I like is the lack of punishment for a ball moving on the green. Green speeds are so quick I find this necessary. The rest is solutions to problems that don't exist.

Matt, in an attempt to win you over a bit, let me say that I find that many players don't fully understand the fairly complicated and extensive 20-2c requirements for re-dropping. The new proposal, which simply requires that the dropped ball remain in the designated area for the original drop, will eliminate almost all of the confusion.

[Roadking2003]

I admit this is a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because most players do not understand, they do not know how loud their music really is(I prefer to think of it that way rather than saying they do not care what others think). But in the op the music rule change was not mentioned-nor is it listed on the summary on the USGA page on the proposed changes.

 

This is from a Q&A with Craig Winter-USGA director of rules and amateur status:

Golfdom: I’m seeing more and more people with music in their golf carts, and I might be one of them. Why did the USGA and the R&A feel compelled to touch on this topic?

Winter: Well, we do call this the “rules modernization initiative,” and I think this is one of many changes that (if) you look at the way the game is played today, it’s not the same as it was played in the past. The prohibition was introduced only in 2014 by decision. We have a rule in golf that limits how golfers can use artificial devices. This is really just a recognition that if you want to listen to music on the golf course because you want to be entertained, that’s OK. But we still have a line in the sand that says, look, if you’re doing it to help with your tempo, to relax you, to eliminate distractions — we still don’t want artificial devices to be able to assist you, so that particular use would still be a prohibition.

 

 

What do you all think of this? Pretty useless if the player can just say it's "for entertainment" and be allowed.

 

Yes, I suppose a metronome is entertainment if you say it is.

[DavePelz4]

You're missing the point. Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole. Every foursome is going to have slow holes and then catch back up. But when courses have no time buffer between groups, a single group falling behind for a couple of minutes ripples through the rest of the field and the field will never catch up, and a marshall isn't going to be able to do jack squat when there's 3 groups on a par 3 and no place to go.

 

It's exactly like driving in rush hour traffic. One extra car merges in a half mile in front of you and it slows every other car down behind, until the traffic is light enough where there's a space buffer.

 

LB normally I agree with you 100% but not on this one. Cramped tee times do cause issues but we played 2 Saturday's ago with 12 minute tee times. We caught the group in front of us in the second fairway. On the 15th hole we literally waited, on the tee, for 10 minutes because they were also on the tee and just futzing around. We were also walking and they were riding...9 miles course. You'd think they'd pick up some extra time with that, too.

 

So while the intervals can and do cause issues, there are just some guys who play really freaking slow.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

You're missing the point. Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole. Every foursome is going to have slow holes and then catch back up. But when courses have no time buffer between groups, a single group falling behind for a couple of minutes ripples through the rest of the field and the field will never catch up, and a marshall isn't going to be able to do jack squat when there's 3 groups on a par 3 and no place to go.

 

It's exactly like driving in rush hour traffic. One extra car merges in a half mile in front of you and it slows every other car down behind, until the traffic is light enough where there's a space buffer.

 

LB normally I agree with you 100% but not on this one. Cramped tee times do cause issues but we played 2 Saturday's ago with 12 minute tee times. We caught the group in front of us in the second fairway. On the 15th hole we literally waited, on the tee, for 10 minutes because they were also on the tee and just futzing around. We were also walking and they were riding...9 miles course. You'd think they'd pick up some extra time with that, too.

 

So while the intervals can and do cause issues, there are just some guys who play really freaking slow.

I agree with you both! And in the example Dave just gave, that's when I wish I could use an RPG to take out the group in front of me. :)

[Shilgy]

You're missing the point. Rarely is slow play due to a group falling behind an entire hole. Every foursome is going to have slow holes and then catch back up. But when courses have no time buffer between groups, a single group falling behind for a couple of minutes ripples through the rest of the field and the field will never catch up, and a marshall isn't going to be able to do jack squat when there's 3 groups on a par 3 and no place to go.

 

It's exactly like driving in rush hour traffic. One extra car merges in a half mile in front of you and it slows every other car down behind, until the traffic is light enough where there's a space buffer.

 

LB normally I agree with you 100% but not on this one. Cramped tee times do cause issues but we played 2 Saturday's ago with 12 minute tee times. We caught the group in front of us in the second fairway. On the 15th hole we literally waited, on the tee, for 10 minutes because they were also on the tee and just futzing around. We were also walking and they were riding...9 miles course. You'd think they'd pick up some extra time with that, too.

 

So while the intervals can and do cause issues, there are just some guys who play really freaking slow.

I agree with you both! And in the example Dave just gave, that's when I wish I could use an RPG to take out the group in front of me. :)

Is shooting the group that fell behind not allowed in your state? Thinking it would be considered justifiable here in Arizona. :)