2019 Rules of Golf

[antip]

When your ball is in play you are required to play as lies (R9.1a); moving the ball without authority is a breach of R9.4b and attracts 1 stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced on its original spot (R9.4a). Playing the ball from another position (than the original position) means the ball was played from a wrong place (R14.7) and the penalty is the general penalty. So we have two rules breached and the critical challenge is to decide whether these are related or unrelated acts. Why? Because if these are related acts the total penalty is the general penalty, that is, 2 penalty strokes. If they are unrelated acts, these penalties are additive and the total penalty is three penalty strokes. Int 1.3c(4)/1 guides on this issue and advises that putting a ball in play is an intervening act that results in the player getting multiple penalties. In the 'case' you have brought, we must assume that the player fully intended to put a ball in play when the ball was dropped (otherwise it would not have been a 'drop' under the rules - you must have intent). Consequently, the total penalty is three penalty strokes.

 

The reason why I asked for an answer according to the Rules of 2018 and 2019 is that under current Rules the total penalty is 2 strokes (see eg. D18-2/4 and 18-2/10) and that seems to be the case in 2019 as well, which is no astonishment as it would be difficult to reason why the RB's would have wanted to increase the number of penalties for a same breach of Rules.

 

The way I read it the published clarification of Rule 1.3c(4) says 'The act of moving the ball in breach of Rule 9.4 is related to playing from wrong place in breach of Rule 14.7'. I also understand it so that in my example putting the ball in play is a direct consequence of moving that ball and thus not an intervening act, especially when Rule 9.4b or 1.3c(4) does not separate situations where a ball has been lifted on purpose or moved accidentally.

 

Furthermore, the Int 1.3c(4)/4 says:

 

'However, Rule 9.4b (Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move) requires that the moved ball be replaced and, if it is not replaced before the stroke, the player will get an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 9.4b. The failure to replace the ball is considered a separate and unrelated act.'

 

and that is what the RB's have corrected by publishing the clarification.

 

Any comments anyone?

Two observations from me. Edit: System crashed before this was posted and a few paras were lost, yet that first sentence only went up on the site. I redid my post below.

[antip]

When your ball is in play you are required to play as lies (R9.1a); moving the ball without authority is a breach of R9.4b and attracts 1 stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced on its original spot (R9.4a). Playing the ball from another position (than the original position) means the ball was played from a wrong place (R14.7) and the penalty is the general penalty. So we have two rules breached and the critical challenge is to decide whether these are related or unrelated acts. Why? Because if these are related acts the total penalty is the general penalty, that is, 2 penalty strokes. If they are unrelated acts, these penalties are additive and the total penalty is three penalty strokes. Int 1.3c(4)/1 guides on this issue and advises that putting a ball in play is an intervening act that results in the player getting multiple penalties. In the 'case' you have brought, we must assume that the player fully intended to put a ball in play when the ball was dropped (otherwise it would not have been a 'drop' under the rules - you must have intent). Consequently, the total penalty is three penalty strokes.

 

The reason why I asked for an answer according to the Rules of 2018 and 2019 is that under current Rules the total penalty is 2 strokes (see eg. D18-2/4 and 18-2/10) and that seems to be the case in 2019 as well, which is no astonishment as it would be difficult to reason why the RB's would have wanted to increase the number of penalties for a same breach of Rules.

 

The way I read it the published clarification of Rule 1.3c(4) says 'The act of moving the ball in breach of Rule 9.4 is related to playing from wrong place in breach of Rule 14.7'. I also understand it so that in my example putting the ball in play is a direct consequence of moving that ball and thus not an intervening act, especially when Rule 9.4b or 1.3c(4) does not separate situations where a ball has been lifted on purpose or moved accidentally.

 

Furthermore, the Int 1.3c(4)/4 says:

 

'However, Rule 9.4b (Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move) requires that the moved ball be replaced and, if it is not replaced before the stroke, the player will get an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 9.4b. The failure to replace the ball is considered a separate and unrelated act.'

 

and that is what the RB's have corrected by publishing the clarification.

 

Any comments anyone?

RBs have corrected nothing related to Int 1.3c(4)/4, it remains unchanged. It is a situation where: player presses down grass behind ball in play, improving the lie, and accidentally moves the ball as well. Player then plays from moved position without replacing. Player gets 4 shot penalty total. This is a situation of unrelated acts in the matter of failing to replace the ball.

 

The clarification targets the very different situation of simply accidental nudge and fail to replace, confirming these are related acts and total penalty of 2 strokes. This is nothing to do with Int 1.3c(4)/4. RB's did this because many folk thought Int 1.3c(4)/4 applied producing a total penalty of three strokes in that simple accidental nudge and fail to replace scenario.

 

Where it becomes a bit more interesting is considering whether the clarification also covers your scenario which is not accidental nudge and fail to replace it is a conscious/deliberate lifting and conscious putting of ball into play in a different (wrong) place unrelated to any authority in the rules. There are two ways to read this - and we do not have any explicit guidance from RBs on which is correct. One read is that the clarification equally applies here - 2 strokes penalty because they are related acts. The second way to read is the one I put above: Int 1.3c(4)/1 tells us explicitly that putting a ball into play is an intervening event leading to multiple penalties. My preference at this stage is to stick with explicit published wording from the RBs but I agree that they may mean either of these two readings in your scenario.

 

I also continue to be of the view that RBs should provide more and clearer examples of related versus unrelated acts so we don't need to have this sort of discussion.

[Mr. Bean]

The clarification targets the very different situation of simply accidental nudge and fail to replace, confirming these are related acts and total penalty of 2 strokes.

 

Where exactly is that said?

[Colin L]

It's the first of the December 18th clarifications.

 

If a player moves his or her ball in play in breach of Rule 9.4 and plays it from its new location rather than replacing it, the player gets only the general penaty under Rulel 14.7 for playing from a wrong place. The act of moving the ball in breach of Rule 9.4 is related to playing from a wrong place in breach of Rule 14.7.

[Mr. Bean]

It's the first of the December 18th clarifications.

 

If a player moves his or her ball in play in breach of Rule 9.4 and plays it from its new location rather than replacing it, the player gets only the general penaty under Rulel 14.7 for playing from a wrong place. The act of moving the ball in breach of Rule 9.4 is related to playing from a wrong place in breach of Rule 14.7.

 

Care to point out where 'simply accidental nudge and fail to replace' is mentioned there?

 

To be very very very precise: where in that text word 'accidental' exists? After all, Rule 9.4b does not make any difference between deliberate and accidental, nor does 1.3c(4) or Int 1.3c(4)/4.

[Mr. Bean]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

My ball in play is in the fairway and I lift it without any Rule allowing me to do that. Then I drop that ball a foot from the spot I lifted it from and play it. How many penalty strokes do I get

A) today

B) in 2019 ?

 

Even though we should not use the current Rules as guidelines when applying and interpreting the new ones there are certain things that have not changed and certain principles the RB's have used along the change. One of the principles has been to moderate the penalties for breaches to better reflect the actual potential advantage. As I have gone through the new Rules I have not yet encountered a single case where penalties are more severe than in current Rules, except R1.3c(4) and it's Interpretation 1.3c(4)/4.

 

Coming back to the case I presented there are two Decisions that are very much analogous to that case, D18-2/4 and 18-2/10. In D18-2/4 a player lifts his ball in play without any Rule allowing him to do that and instead of replacing his ball he drops it away from the original place. The way I see it that is exactly what happens in my case, and Rules today dictate that the player gets ONLY the general penalty of Rule 18, i.e. 2 PS.

 

So, why would the ruling next year be more penalizing than today? IMO that does not fit to the general idea of this big change nor the spirit of the game.

 

Also, when I read the clarification RB's have made on 1.3c(4) it says: 'Playing From a Wrong Place Is Related to Causing Ball to Move'. In plain words this means: 'If you cause your ball to move and do not replace it but play from a wrong place you get the general penalty under R14.7'. As Rule 9.4b does not take a stand how the player has moved his ball in play the term 'Causing Ball to Move' covers all possible ways a player might move his ball in play. IMO this clearly says that the Int 1.3c(4)/4 was incorrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification.

[Newby]

 

Also, when I read the clarification RB's have made on 1.3c(4) it says: 'Playing From a Wrong Place Is Related to Causing Ball to Move'. In plain words this means: 'If you cause your ball to move and do not replace it but play from a wrong place you get the general penalty under R14.7'. As Rule 9.4b does not take a stand how the player has moved his ball in play the term 'Causing Ball to Move' covers all possible ways a player might move his ball in play. IMO this clearly says that the Int 1.3c(4)/4 was incorrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification.

 

Correct

[Colin L]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

Reluctant? Please don't make assumptions! We have just hosted our annual Christmas Eve meal for some of our family and I've spent the day in the kitchen and the evening very congenially enjoying the outcome of the day spent in the kitchen. Tomorrow will be busy too. I'llI should be able to have a thought about your question on Wednesday.

[antip]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

My ball in play is in the fairway and I lift it without any Rule allowing me to do that. Then I drop that ball a foot from the spot I lifted it from and play it. How many penalty strokes do I get

A) today

B) in 2019 ?

 

Even though we should not use the current Rules as guidelines when applying and interpreting the new ones there are certain things that have not changed and certain principles the RB's have used along the change. One of the principles has been to moderate the penalties for breaches to better reflect the actual potential advantage. As I have gone through the new Rules I have not yet encountered a single case where penalties are more severe than in current Rules, except R1.3c(4) and it's Interpretation 1.3c(4)/4.

 

Coming back to the case I presented there are two Decisions that are very much analogous to that case, D18-2/4 and 18-2/10. In D18-2/4 a player lifts his ball in play without any Rule allowing him to do that and instead of replacing his ball he drops it away from the original place. The way I see it that is exactly what happens in my case, and Rules today dictate that the player gets ONLY the general penalty of Rule 18, i.e. 2 PS.

 

So, why would the ruling next year be more penalizing than today? IMO that does not fit to the general idea of this big change nor the spirit of the game.

 

Also, when I read the clarification RB's have made on 1.3c(4) it says: 'Playing From a Wrong Place Is Related to Causing Ball to Move'. In plain words this means: 'If you cause your ball to move and do not replace it but play from a wrong place you get the general penalty under R14.7'. As Rule 9.4b does not take a stand how the player has moved his ball in play the term 'Causing Ball to Move' covers all possible ways a player might move his ball in play. IMO this clearly says that the Int 1.3c(4)/4 was incorrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification.

 

2018: it is very simple, a no brainer, 2SP, as stated clearly in the penalty statement for R18. There is no requirement to get into decisions.

 

2019: I have already expressed my view above. You can read the 'clarification' as directly relevant and conclude 2SP (and I agree that the current D18-2/10 is consistent with that interpretation); or you can read Int 1.3c(4)/1 reference to "putting a ball into play" as directly relevant and conclude 3SP - and clearly both of these cannot be correct. In the absence of that wording in Int 1.3c(4)/1, I would be quick to say the answer is unequivocally 2SP, but that new wording muddies the water and I would see it as a valuable role for RBs to provide more examples in this space to make it easier for all to be on the same page.

 

But I don't see any wording from RBs that states "Int1.3c(4)/4 was incorrrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification". In fact, seeing you are a fan of deciding 2019 things with 2018 rulings, I suggest you read D1-4/12, case 5, example 2, which is analagous to Int 1.3c(4)/4 - that is, an initial breach of two rules (per case 4, example 2) that are related produces only one penalty, but if there is a failure to replace (as in case 5, example 2) then an additional 2SP applies because that failure to replace is unrelated to the original breach. And Int 1.3c(4)/4, also, has an initial breach of two rules (outlined in Int 1.3c(4)/2) which are related so produce only one penalty (the higher one), but if there is a failure to replace then that failure is unrelated to the original breach so the penalty count grows by 2SP.

 

To conclude my view: a) there is no change to Int 1.3c(4)/4; and b) it would be useful to put your scenario to RBs to confirm whether Int 1.3c(4)/1 intends to catch that scenario within its scope.

[Mr. Bean]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

Reluctant? Please don't make assumptions! We have just hosted our annual Christmas Eve meal for some of our family and I've spent the day in the kitchen and the evening very congenially enjoying the outcome of the day spent in the kitchen. Tomorrow will be busy too. I'llI should be able to have a thought about your question on Wednesday.

 

My sincere apologies, Colin.

 

Although Rules of Golf should go before Christmas preparations, IMHO... :taunt:

[Mr. Bean]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

My ball in play is in the fairway and I lift it without any Rule allowing me to do that. Then I drop that ball a foot from the spot I lifted it from and play it. How many penalty strokes do I get

A) today

B) in 2019 ?

 

Even though we should not use the current Rules as guidelines when applying and interpreting the new ones there are certain things that have not changed and certain principles the RB's have used along the change. One of the principles has been to moderate the penalties for breaches to better reflect the actual potential advantage. As I have gone through the new Rules I have not yet encountered a single case where penalties are more severe than in current Rules, except R1.3c(4) and it's Interpretation 1.3c(4)/4.

 

Coming back to the case I presented there are two Decisions that are very much analogous to that case, D18-2/4 and 18-2/10. In D18-2/4 a player lifts his ball in play without any Rule allowing him to do that and instead of replacing his ball he drops it away from the original place. The way I see it that is exactly what happens in my case, and Rules today dictate that the player gets ONLY the general penalty of Rule 18, i.e. 2 PS.

 

So, why would the ruling next year be more penalizing than today? IMO that does not fit to the general idea of this big change nor the spirit of the game.

 

Also, when I read the clarification RB's have made on 1.3c(4) it says: 'Playing From a Wrong Place Is Related to Causing Ball to Move'. In plain words this means: 'If you cause your ball to move and do not replace it but play from a wrong place you get the general penalty under R14.7'. As Rule 9.4b does not take a stand how the player has moved his ball in play the term 'Causing Ball to Move' covers all possible ways a player might move his ball in play. IMO this clearly says that the Int 1.3c(4)/4 was incorrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification.

 

2018: it is very simple, a no brainer, 2SP, as stated clearly in the penalty statement for R18. There is no requirement to get into decisions.

 

2019: I have already expressed my view above. You can read the 'clarification' as directly relevant and conclude 2SP (and I agree that the current D18-2/10 is consistent with that interpretation); or you can read Int 1.3c(4)/1 reference to "putting a ball into play" as directly relevant and conclude 3SP - and clearly both of these cannot be correct. In the absence of that wording in Int 1.3c(4)/1, I would be quick to say the answer is unequivocally 2SP, but that new wording muddies the water and I would see it as a valuable role for RBs to provide more examples in this space to make it easier for all to be on the same page.

 

But I don't see any wording from RBs that states "Int1.3c(4)/4 was incorrrectly written and the last paragraph of it needs to be replaced with the Clarification". In fact, seeing you are a fan of deciding 2019 things with 2018 rulings, I suggest you read D1-4/12, case 5, example 2, which is analagous to Int 1.3c(4)/4 - that is, an initial breach of two rules (per case 4, example 2) that are related produces only one penalty, but if there is a failure to replace (as in case 5, example 2) then an additional 2SP applies because that failure to replace is unrelated to the original breach. And Int 1.3c(4)/4, also, has an initial breach of two rules (outlined in Int 1.3c(4)/2) which are related so produce only one penalty (the higher one), but if there is a failure to replace then that failure is unrelated to the original breach so the penalty count grows by 2SP.

 

To conclude my view: a) there is no change to Int 1.3c(4)/4; and b) it would be useful to put your scenario to RBs to confirm whether Int 1.3c(4)/1 intends to catch that scenario within its scope.

 

So... what you are trying to say is that this breach worth 2 PS in 2018 will be worth 3 PS next year? Is that it?

[antip]

So... what you are trying to say is that this breach worth 2 PS in 2018 will be worth 3 PS next year? Is that it?

 

I've explained my view twice now on this issue, but you would like to hear it yet again? I've also identified what I think are the key decision criteria relevant to whether the correct answer is 2SP or 3 SP.

 

I think I can point to a different example where there is an increase in the penalty from 2018 to 2019. Q. A player's ball lies in the general area. After playing a pitch shot up a slope, the player sees his ball start to roll back towards him. He places his club in front of the ball and stops it. The ball would have rolled only a few yards more and remained in the general area. What is the ruling?

 

This is the question in D1-2/5.5. It is interesting to consider how 2019 treats this situation.

[Colin L]

As both antip and Colin have been reluctant to take a stand on my case I take it up again:

 

Reluctant? Please don't make assumptions! We have just hosted our annual Christmas Eve meal for some of our family and I've spent the day in the kitchen and the evening very congenially enjoying the outcome of the day spent in the kitchen. Tomorrow will be busy too. I'llI should be able to have a thought about your question on Wednesday.

 

My sincere apologies, Colin.

 

Although Rules of Golf should go before Christmas preparations, IMHO... :taunt:

 

No need for apologies! I should have put a smilie at the end to indicate a ood humoured and none too serious protest.

 

Mornng festiivities over, I'm about to drift off into a gentle snooze in preparation for the evening . If I dream at all, it will be about anything other the the rules of golf.

 

Enjoy!

[Mr. Bean]

So... what you are trying to say is that this breach worth 2 PS in 2018 will be worth 3 PS next year? Is that it?

 

I've explained my view twice now on this issue, but you would like to hear it yet again? I've also identified what I think are the key decision criteria relevant to whether the correct answer is 2SP or 3 SP.

 

 

So you evaded my question once again by writing a long and unclear text while simple yes or no would have sufficed.

 

Why is that? Are you afraid to take a stand? Or are you afraid to be proved wrong..?

[antip]

So... what you are trying to say is that this breach worth 2 PS in 2018 will be worth 3 PS next year? Is that it?

 

I've explained my view twice now on this issue, but you would like to hear it yet again? I've also identified what I think are the key decision criteria relevant to whether the correct answer is 2SP or 3 SP.

 

 

So you evaded my question once again by writing a long and unclear text while simple yes or no would have sufficed.

 

Why is that? Are you afraid to take a stand? Or are you afraid to be proved wrong..?

That is good, suggesting someone is evading issues. I have pointed out the problem with your interpretation of Int 1.3c(4)/4 and you haven't responded. Whether you do or not is your choice, this is a site for discussion and learning, not chest beating.

 

My answer above, copied here again for you convenience: 2019: I have already expressed my view above. You can read the 'clarification' as directly relevant and conclude 2SP (and I agree that the current D18-2/10 is consistent with that interpretation); or you can read Int 1.3c(4)/1 reference to "putting a ball into play" as directly relevant and conclude 3SP - and clearly both of these cannot be correct.

 

Shortening it further for you: if D18-2/10 holds in 2019, answer is 2SP. If the reference in Int 1.3c(4)/1 to "putting a ball in play" is relevant in this situation, it is 3SP.

 

Scared of being wrong? Not at all, there is no better way to learn. And I've not come across a single rules commentator that gets it right all the time, that is the nature of the beast. I'll look forward to your next thoughtful intervention.

[Mr. Bean]

So... what you are trying to say is that this breach worth 2 PS in 2018 will be worth 3 PS next year? Is that it?

 

I've explained my view twice now on this issue, but you would like to hear it yet again? I've also identified what I think are the key decision criteria relevant to whether the correct answer is 2SP or 3 SP.

 

 

So you evaded my question once again by writing a long and unclear text while simple yes or no would have sufficed.

 

Why is that? Are you afraid to take a stand? Or are you afraid to be proved wrong..?

That is good, suggesting someone is evading issues. I have pointed out the problem with your interpretation of Int 1.3c(4)/4 and you haven't responded. Whether you do or not is your choice, this is a site for discussion and learning, not chest beating.

 

My answer above, copied here again for you convenience: 2019: I have already expressed my view above. You can read the 'clarification' as directly relevant and conclude 2SP (and I agree that the current D18-2/10 is consistent with that interpretation); or you can read Int 1.3c(4)/1 reference to "putting a ball into play" as directly relevant and conclude 3SP - and clearly both of these cannot be correct.

 

Shortening it further for you: if D18-2/10 holds in 2019, answer is 2SP. If the reference in Int 1.3c(4)/1 to "putting a ball in play" is relevant in this situation, it is 3SP.

 

Scared of being wrong? Not at all, there is no better way to learn. And I've not come across a single rules commentator that gets it right all the time, that is the nature of the beast. I'll look forward to your next thoughtful intervention.

 

Oh my, you are truly skilled... no answer again...

 

I just wonder how you can ignore the clarification the RB's have published as it clearly says it is only 2 PS. Then again, you have not taken a stand in any direction because you are afraid.

 

However, here is the text:

 

'If a player moves his or her ball in play in breach of Rule 9.4 and plays it from its new location rather than replacing it, the player gets only the general penalty under Rule 14.7 for playing from a wrong place. The act of moving the ball in breach of Rule 9.4 is related to playing from a wrong place in breach of Rule 14.7.'

 

That text is plain and simple: If you move your ball in play and play it from another location you get a penalty of two strokes. Now, where in that text does it say anything about related or unrelated acts?

 

in other words: How simple must a text be that you would understand it?

 

I am done here.

[antip]

How simple must a text be that you would understand it?

 

It appears you think it is appropriate behavior to belittle other contributors. I think it is important to treat every contributor with respect and I encourage you to point out to me if you think I am not meeting that objective.

[Mudguard]

I've been wondering with the new local rule for stroke and distance and the flexibility of penalty areas whether they are of any use for certain areas of our course.

We have numerous examples with holes that are lined with extremely long rough, about a metre high, and then beyond is out of bounds.

There is no intention to actually mow any of us, and at present it is virtually a lost ball, if you find it, you cannot hit it. Is it better to simply move the out of bounds to the edge of the normal rough? I can't see the point of having a penalty area, then out of bounds for the long rough as everyone will simply claim it's lost in the penalty area rather than carrying on out of bounds.

[Sawgrass]

I've been wondering with the new local rule for stroke and distance and the flexibility of penalty areas whether they are of any use for certain areas of our course.

We have numerous examples with holes that are lined with extremely long rough, about a metre high, and then beyond is out of bounds.

There is no intention to actually mow any of us, and at present it is virtually a lost ball, if you find it, you cannot hit it. Is it better to simply move the out of bounds to the edge of the normal rough? I can't see the point of having a penalty area, then out of bounds for the long rough as everyone will simply claim it's lost in the penalty area rather than carrying on out of bounds.

One choice would be to eliminate the OB line, establish the penalty area at the beginning of the high grass (running away to infinity), then allow everyone the legitimate right to a 1sp drop or to play it if they can find it. No LR necessary.

[Newby]

I've been wondering with the new local rule for stroke and distance and the flexibility of penalty areas whether they are of any use for certain areas of our course.

We have numerous examples with holes that are lined with extremely long rough, about a metre high, and then beyond is out of bounds.

There is no intention to actually mow any of us, and at present it is virtually a lost ball, if you find it, you cannot hit it. Is it better to simply move the out of bounds to the edge of the normal rough? I can't see the point of having a penalty area, then out of bounds for the long rough as everyone will simply claim it's lost in the penalty area rather than carrying on out of bounds.

One choice would be to eliminate the OB line, establish the penalty area at the beginning of the high grass (running away to infinity), then allow everyone the legitimate right to a 1sp drop or to play it if they can find it. No LR necessary.

That's very generous. Even the LR charges 2sp.

 

Edit: But I forgot. You are over there ;)

[Sawgrass]

I've been wondering with the new local rule for stroke and distance and the flexibility of penalty areas whether they are of any use for certain areas of our course.

We have numerous examples with holes that are lined with extremely long rough, about a metre high, and then beyond is out of bounds.

There is no intention to actually mow any of us, and at present it is virtually a lost ball, if you find it, you cannot hit it. Is it better to simply move the out of bounds to the edge of the normal rough? I can't see the point of having a penalty area, then out of bounds for the long rough as everyone will simply claim it's lost in the penalty area rather than carrying on out of bounds.

One choice would be to eliminate the OB line, establish the penalty area at the beginning of the high grass (running away to infinity), then allow everyone the legitimate right to a 1sp drop or to play it if they can find it. No LR necessary.

That's very generous. Even the LR charges 2sp.

 

Edit: But I forgot. You are over there ;)

I’m here and I’m generous.

[Newby]

[antip]

Brilliant video, thank you for the reference.

[Shilgy]

I've been wondering with the new local rule for stroke and distance and the flexibility of penalty areas whether they are of any use for certain areas of our course.

We have numerous examples with holes that are lined with extremely long rough, about a metre high, and then beyond is out of bounds.

There is no intention to actually mow any of us, and at present it is virtually a lost ball, if you find it, you cannot hit it. Is it better to simply move the out of bounds to the edge of the normal rough? I can't see the point of having a penalty area, then out of bounds for the long rough as everyone will simply claim it's lost in the penalty area rather than carrying on out of bounds.

One choice would be to eliminate the OB line, establish the penalty area at the beginning of the high grass (running away to infinity), then allow everyone the legitimate right to a 1sp drop or to play it if they can find it. No LR necessary.

That's very generous. Even the LR charges 2sp.

 

Edit: But I forgot. You are over there ;)

I’m here and I’m generous.

Tis the season :)

[Sawgrass]

Very cute. And super-nice beard!

[Hawkeye77]

Working our way to minus 6 F by 10 am tomorrow - people want to get all excited about how they are playing by the new rules on Jan. 1 I don't want to read about it.

[nsxguy]

Working our way to minus 6 F by 10 am tomorrow - people want to get all excited about how they are playing by the new rules on Jan. 1 I don't want to read about it.

 

Actually had to turn on the A/C tonight. :sorry:

[Hawkeye77]

Working our way to minus 6 F by 10 am tomorrow - people want to get all excited about how they are playing by the new rules on Jan. 1 I don't want to read about it.

 

Actually had to turn on the A/C tonight. :sorry:

 

LOL, glad to hear someone's oranges aren't freezing.

[Shilgy]

Working our way to minus 6 F by 10 am tomorrow - people want to get all excited about how they are playing by the new rules on Jan. 1 I don't want to read about it.

 

Actually had to turn on the A/C tonight. :sorry:

 

LOL, glad to hear someone's oranges aren't freezing.

Ours are if that helps. Reached our high for the day early this morning and it was about 40° and rainy most of the day. Below 50° the next couple days as well. I might as well move back to Minnesota. :(

[deadsolid...shank]

Working our way to minus 6 F by 10 am tomorrow - people want to get all excited about how they are playing by the new rules on Jan. 1 I don't want to read about it.

 

Hawk, are you guys supposed to warm up by the end of the week though. Talking around 50* here Friday.