2019 And The Pin Is In

[nsxguy]

I played a couple days ago. First time playing with others with the new rule. I asked them on the first green if they were doing the pin in thing. They said yes. Problem was that the course was very wet and the cups were loose causing the flags to lean. I missed a putt that hit the stick that was leaning to the right. My fault for not taking the pin out.

 

Course was slow and you know how that goes. Group ahead took the pin out, putted, put the pin back in, we got ready to hit our shots then realized they were still putting. Have to get used to that.

 

"Group ahead took the pin out, putted, put the pin back in, we got ready to hit our shots then realized they were still putting. Have to get used to that."

 

Actually you pointed out a potentially dangerous issue with the new flag rule.

 

Our #4 hole is a very steep uphill hole and anyone that is 150 yards out cannot see the people putting on the green. In fact we have an extra long flag stick just so that we can see the top of the flag on approaches.

 

We used to rely on seeing the flag go down and then up as indication that the group ahead is finished and off the green.

 

Now we need to send someone ahead to verify that the group is finished.

 

So before this you did what ? Saw the flag go up and counted to 20 ? 45 ? 60 ? How would you know when the green was clear ?

 

We had a hole like this at my old club. There was almost always a cart in the group behind so guys in a cart would ride up and watch the proceedings. When the group had all holed out and were heading off the green they'd drive back.

 

By the time they got back the green would have been cleared and everybody could hit.

 

Generally we would be able to see the group ahead heading up to the green from the tee box.

 

Observe the flag coming down as we walked up to our ball after the drive.

 

It is at that point that we no longer can see the green unless you were within 130 yards.

 

Look for the flag to come back up and wait a few more seconds. Hit.

 

There is the odd time that there is a strangler in the group ahead and they have to put the pin back for that person thus causing us to hit as we would assume everyone is done. This does happen but is rare.

 

Our hole is similar in that sometimes, after we arrive at our ball (a little late), we can see the guys we know are in the previous group climbing up the hill to the side of the green going to the next tee.

 

If we see (what we know is) all of them we won't bother driving up to the green as nobody else should be there.

[rogolf]

Rogolf, Sawgrass. I agree the marker is not a referee and we as players/markers (maybe even as referees) can't witness everything that happens in the group so the system can't be perfect and every player needs to be considered to be honest unless proven otherwise. Even so, I struggle with the idea of players taking off on their own or leaving others behind. It can open a can of worms.

 

I'll see if I can get my head around it while I take my dog out for a walk. By the looks of if my brains need to work fast though as the doggo most certainly won't be pleased with the weather. :D

Imo going to the next tee before everyone finishes the hole is rude and disrespectful, but that's just me.

However, going one step further, imo (and the opinion of others) if that player plays from the next tee before the other players in his assigned group have finished the previous hole, he has left the group set by the Committee in breach of Rule 5.4b and faces disqualification.

I believe it's a common practice among touring pros, when play is about to be suspended due to darkness (for instance) to have one player in the group who has finished the hole run up to the next tee and tee off, thereby preserving the right for all of the group to finish that next hole if they wish.

 

Am I wrong? Are you saying the lead player should be DQed?

 

A pragmatic approach: If players of a same group are playing different holes at the same time they are no longer a same group. And no, you cannot find this sentence from the Rules, you will have to find confirmation from the USGA...

Are you saying that I should not believe my eyes when watching touring pros, but rather a non-existent sentence?

 

Kidding aside, I respect this debate. IMO it all comes down to 5.4b when it says that a player must "remain in the group set by the Committee . . ." I find no further qualification of what "remaining" means. It could mean not joining other competitors (it most certainly at least includes this), it could mean going to the men's room together (it most certainly doesn't mean this). But I find it hard to believe that teeing off on the next hole is failing to remain in the same group. Part of my resistance is that you could make the argument that the remaining players, who might have finished the preceding hole, have not yet arrived at the tee box when the first player strikes his tee shot.

 

I wish I remember better the infamous scene when one tour player got frustrated with the slow play of another tour player and took off toward the next tee prior to the slow player's finishing putting. Rory Sabbatini and Ben Crane, I believe. I confess I can't recall if Rory hit his tee shot before Ben putted out.

That's correct. Rory did not play from the next tee, he sat on the bench and waited. Made his point tho'

[antip]

I think they "should" witness, but I don't think they "must."

 

Even in the US Open qualifiers I've reffed, markers are other players in the same group. They are often busy with their own play and not devoted to watching every shot of their charge.

 

Just to throw some food for the brain: Why a marker has to be assigned (to a player) if anyone can act as the marker?

 

And how can the marker agree with his player upon the player's score if he has no clue what the player has been up to?

In the past, after seeing some appallingly bad marker behaviour (bullying over-reach of another player), I researched every rules/decision reference to marker. At club level, there is common misunderstanding, many thinking if they see something hinky but they are not the marker they don't need to do anything about it. And if a decision is needed, say, is there KVC that a ball has been moved by an outside influence, I have heard reasonably rules-savvy people say "that is the marker's call" when it is in fact the player's call but the player must take all evidence into account, including the perspective of the marker and any others that can contribute. The often-misunderstood bottom line is the marker is the one to write the score of another and certify, or only partially certify if there is an issue to resolved with the Committee, but beyond that the marker carries the same responsibility as everyone, to observe and help all play within the rules.

 

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here on these themes, but on the course with people I'm unfamiliar with it is not unusual to need to address some of these misunderstandings.

 

Returning to the Bean questions: Why a marker has to be assigned... In my experience on this continent (Australia), a Committee has never directly assigned a marker to my card. That is simply done by the group at tee-off, a system which has the blessing of the Committee.

 

How can the marker agree if he has no clue what the player has been up to? Marker is certifying what he has seen, and should be alert to observe as much as is practical (and not limited to the player he is marking for) but there are practical limits to that. Where he doesn't directly witness, he relies on the advice of the player or others where that can assist.

 

And as others have noted, a player cannot register a score if there is no marker, but in a pinch others can fill the marker's shoes and there are interpretations that deal with things like alternate certifiers if needed.

[Mr. Bean]

I think they "should" witness, but I don't think they "must."

 

Even in the US Open qualifiers I've reffed, markers are other players in the same group. They are often busy with their own play and not devoted to watching every shot of their charge.

 

Just to throw some food for the brain: Why a marker has to be assigned (to a player) if anyone can act as the marker?

 

And how can the marker agree with his player upon the player's score if he has no clue what the player has been up to?

In the past, after seeing some appallingly bad marker behaviour (bullying over-reach of another player), I researched every rules/decision reference to marker. At club level, there is common misunderstanding, many thinking if they see something hinky but they are not the marker they don't need to do anything about it. And if a decision is needed, say, is there KVC that a ball has been moved by an outside influence, I have heard reasonably rules-savvy people say "that is the marker's call" when it is in fact the player's call but the player must take all evidence into account, including the perspective of the marker and any others that can contribute. The often-misunderstood bottom line is the marker is the one to write the score of another and certify, or only partially certify if there is an issue to resolved with the Committee, but beyond that the marker carries the same responsibility as everyone, to observe and help all play within the rules.

 

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here on these themes, but on the course with people I'm unfamiliar with it is not unusual to need to address some of these misunderstandings.

 

Returning to the Bean questions: Why a marker has to be assigned... In my experience on this continent (Australia), a Committee has never directly assigned a marker to my card. That is simply done by the group at tee-off, a system which has the blessing of the Committee.

 

How can the marker agree if he has no clue what the player has been up to? Marker is certifying what he has seen, and should be alert to observe as much as is practical (and not limited to the player he is marking for) but there are practical limits to that. Where he doesn't directly witness, he relies on the advice of the player or others where that can assist.

 

And as others have noted, a player cannot register a score if there is no marker, but in a pinch others can fill the marker's shoes and there are interpretations that deal with things like alternate certifiers if needed.

 

So... from this remarkably well written text of yours, what is the verdict? And the answer to my question (EDIT: comment) in #328 ?

[antip]

Besides he cannot play before his marker is there and his marker may very well be the last guy to show up.

There is no rule that supports this. It implies the marker has some special role (outside marking and signing a card) which is not the case - there is no special arbiter or witnessing role. The marker in stroke play has an equal role to every other player in the field of watching all that is going on around and raising any rules concerns that they see. The only role specific to the marker is writing a score on the card and certifying the entries on the card. If they believe there is a problem with the card, they need to raise it with the player/Committee and withhold certifying any problem holes. But every other player can (and under the rules must) raise those same rules concerns with the Committee when they are aware of an issue.

 

Int 3.3b/1 suggests the marker has a bit larger/more prominent/important role than you describe.

Mr Bean

 

I hadn't seen this post when I made my most recent posting on this 'marker' theme. But I am not seeing an inconsistency between my post above and 3.3b/1. Far from it, I think they align fully. My post is clear that the only specific responsibility for the marker is writing a score card and certifying entries (where the marker agrees with them) and withholding certifying if they do not and raising the issue with the Committee. 3.3b/1 affirms that if the marker fails in this specific responsibility - certifies a hole result that he knows is wrong - the marker should be disqualified.

 

3.3b/1 is the new version of old D1-3/6.

[rogolf]

I think they "should" witness, but I don't think they "must."

 

Even in the US Open qualifiers I've reffed, markers are other players in the same group. They are often busy with their own play and not devoted to watching every shot of their charge.

 

Just to throw some food for the brain: Why a marker has to be assigned (to a player) if anyone can act as the marker?

 

And how can the marker agree with his player upon the player's score if he has no clue what the player has been up to?

In the past, after seeing some appallingly bad marker behaviour (bullying over-reach of another player), I researched every rules/decision reference to marker. At club level, there is common misunderstanding, many thinking if they see something hinky but they are not the marker they don't need to do anything about it. And if a decision is needed, say, is there KVC that a ball has been moved by an outside influence, I have heard reasonably rules-savvy people say "that is the marker's call" when it is in fact the player's call but the player must take all evidence into account, including the perspective of the marker and any others that can contribute. The often-misunderstood bottom line is the marker is the one to write the score of another and certify, or only partially certify if there is an issue to resolved with the Committee, but beyond that the marker carries the same responsibility as everyone, to observe and help all play within the rules.

 

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here on these themes, but on the course with people I'm unfamiliar with it is not unusual to need to address some of these misunderstandings.

 

Returning to the Bean questions: Why a marker has to be assigned... In my experience on this continent (Australia), a Committee has never directly assigned a marker to my card. That is simply done by the group at tee-off, a system which has the blessing of the Committee.

 

How can the marker agree if he has no clue what the player has been up to? Marker is certifying what he has seen, and should be alert to observe as much as is practical (and not limited to the player he is marking for) but there are practical limits to that. Where he doesn't directly witness, he relies on the advice of the player or others where that can assist.

 

And as others have noted, a player cannot register a score if there is no marker, but in a pinch others can fill the marker's shoes and there are interpretations that deal with things like alternate certifiers if needed.

Did you happen to see the resumption of the final round at Pebble Beach this morning? It was interesting that while Paul Casey was putting out on the 16th green, Phil Mickelson (obviously Casey's marker) was waiting (stretching and warming up) on the 17th tee, a considerable distance from the 16th green. In fact, I don't think that Phil ever went back to the 16th green this morning. Further, I noted that Phil didn't play from the 17th tee, even though he had the honour.

[dormie1360]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

[sui generis]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

I'll bet you've sat in scoring as a marker calls out 453 444 463 only to have the player say they had a 5 on number 8. Marker says, okay, and changes the score to a 5.

 

There's a culture in junior golf which regards a player's reporting of his score to his marker as "uncool."

[rogolf]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

I'll bet you've sat in scoring as a marker calls out 453 444 463 only to have the player say they had a 5 on number 8. Marker says, okay, and changes the score to a 5.

 

There's a culture in junior golf which regards a player's reporting of his score to his marker as "uncool."

I find that disturbing. Regardless, the player needs to respond when the marker or opponent asks.

[sui generis]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

I'll bet you've sat in scoring as a marker calls out 453 444 463 only to have the player say they had a 5 on number 8. Marker says, okay, and changes the score to a 5.

 

There's a culture in junior golf which regards a player's reporting of his score to his marker as "uncool."

I find that disturbing. Regardless, the player needs to respond when the marker or opponent asks.

 

They do reply, I think. It's the asking that's thought "uncool."

[antip]

I think they "should" witness, but I don't think they "must."

 

Even in the US Open qualifiers I've reffed, markers are other players in the same group. They are often busy with their own play and not devoted to watching every shot of their charge.

 

Just to throw some food for the brain: Why a marker has to be assigned (to a player) if anyone can act as the marker?

 

And how can the marker agree with his player upon the player's score if he has no clue what the player has been up to?

In the past, after seeing some appallingly bad marker behaviour (bullying over-reach of another player), I researched every rules/decision reference to marker. At club level, there is common misunderstanding, many thinking if they see something hinky but they are not the marker they don't need to do anything about it. And if a decision is needed, say, is there KVC that a ball has been moved by an outside influence, I have heard reasonably rules-savvy people say "that is the marker's call" when it is in fact the player's call but the player must take all evidence into account, including the perspective of the marker and any others that can contribute. The often-misunderstood bottom line is the marker is the one to write the score of another and certify, or only partially certify if there is an issue to resolved with the Committee, but beyond that the marker carries the same responsibility as everyone, to observe and help all play within the rules.

 

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here on these themes, but on the course with people I'm unfamiliar with it is not unusual to need to address some of these misunderstandings.

 

Returning to the Bean questions: Why a marker has to be assigned... In my experience on this continent (Australia), a Committee has never directly assigned a marker to my card. That is simply done by the group at tee-off, a system which has the blessing of the Committee.

 

How can the marker agree if he has no clue what the player has been up to? Marker is certifying what he has seen, and should be alert to observe as much as is practical (and not limited to the player he is marking for) but there are practical limits to that. Where he doesn't directly witness, he relies on the advice of the player or others where that can assist.

 

And as others have noted, a player cannot register a score if there is no marker, but in a pinch others can fill the marker's shoes and there are interpretations that deal with things like alternate certifiers if needed.

Did you happen to see the resumption of the final round at Pebble Beach this morning? It was interesting that while Paul Casey was putting out on the 16th green, Phil Mickelson (obviously Casey's marker) was waiting (stretching and warming up) on the 17th tee, a considerable distance from the 16th green. In fact, I don't think that Phil ever went back to the 16th green this morning. Further, I noted that Phil didn't play from the 17th tee, even though he had the honour.

I didn't see any of this, but a friend who likes to watch all the tournament golf on cable TV here was highly incensed by the PM behaviour yesterday evening.

[rogolf]

I think they "should" witness, but I don't think they "must."

 

Even in the US Open qualifiers I've reffed, markers are other players in the same group. They are often busy with their own play and not devoted to watching every shot of their charge.

 

Just to throw some food for the brain: Why a marker has to be assigned (to a player) if anyone can act as the marker?

 

And how can the marker agree with his player upon the player's score if he has no clue what the player has been up to?

In the past, after seeing some appallingly bad marker behaviour (bullying over-reach of another player), I researched every rules/decision reference to marker. At club level, there is common misunderstanding, many thinking if they see something hinky but they are not the marker they don't need to do anything about it. And if a decision is needed, say, is there KVC that a ball has been moved by an outside influence, I have heard reasonably rules-savvy people say "that is the marker's call" when it is in fact the player's call but the player must take all evidence into account, including the perspective of the marker and any others that can contribute. The often-misunderstood bottom line is the marker is the one to write the score of another and certify, or only partially certify if there is an issue to resolved with the Committee, but beyond that the marker carries the same responsibility as everyone, to observe and help all play within the rules.

 

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here on these themes, but on the course with people I'm unfamiliar with it is not unusual to need to address some of these misunderstandings.

 

Returning to the Bean questions: Why a marker has to be assigned... In my experience on this continent (Australia), a Committee has never directly assigned a marker to my card. That is simply done by the group at tee-off, a system which has the blessing of the Committee.

 

How can the marker agree if he has no clue what the player has been up to? Marker is certifying what he has seen, and should be alert to observe as much as is practical (and not limited to the player he is marking for) but there are practical limits to that. Where he doesn't directly witness, he relies on the advice of the player or others where that can assist.

 

And as others have noted, a player cannot register a score if there is no marker, but in a pinch others can fill the marker's shoes and there are interpretations that deal with things like alternate certifiers if needed.

Did you happen to see the resumption of the final round at Pebble Beach this morning? It was interesting that while Paul Casey was putting out on the 16th green, Phil Mickelson (obviously Casey's marker) was waiting (stretching and warming up) on the 17th tee, a considerable distance from the 16th green. In fact, I don't think that Phil ever went back to the 16th green this morning. Further, I noted that Phil didn't play from the 17th tee, even though he had the honour.

I didn't see any of this, but a friend who likes to watch all the tournament golf on cable TV here was highly incensed by the PM behaviour yesterday evening.

Did your friend also see the interview with Phil after the round was over? Phil said he had made a sincere apology to Casey in the morning for the previous evening. He said he "was in his bubble" and "failed to see the big picture".

[HitEmTrue]

Did your friend also see the interview with Phil after it the round was over? Phil said he had made a sincere apology to Casey in the morning for the previous evening. He said he "was in his bubble" and "failed to see the big picture".

 

Also this interview after play completed on Sunday...mis-titled on pgatour.com.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/video/2019/02/10/phil-mickelson-interview-after-round-4-of-at-t-pebble-beach.html

[jmkenn0]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

[Mr. Bean]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

But... did they putt on the 17th with the pin in or out..? (ref to the topic of this thread)

[Roadking2003]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

So, he's a jackWord not allowed for wanting to continue playing? Got it.

[Roadking2003]

I didn't see any of this, but a friend who likes to watch all the tournament golf on cable TV here was highly incensed by the PM behaviour yesterday evening.

 

Why? They had a very polite discussion and Phil agreed with Paul. Why would your friend be "highly incensed"?

[davep043]

I didn't see any of this, but a friend who likes to watch all the tournament golf on cable TV here was highly incensed by the PM behaviour yesterday evening.

 

Why? They had a very polite discussion and Phil agreed with Paul. Why would your friend be "highly incensed"?

I don't think you're allowed to use the words"mildly irritated" on the internet.

[antip]

I didn't see any of this, but a friend who likes to watch all the tournament golf on cable TV here was highly incensed by the PM behaviour yesterday evening.

Did your friend also see the interview with Phil after the round was over? Phil said he had made a sincere apology to Casey in the morning for the previous evening. He said he "was in his bubble" and "failed to see the big picture".

No, his reaction was just to seeing Phil's self obsessed performance on the course. I'm glad to hear he still has the ability to self assess what he has done, even if later.

[jmkenn0]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

So, he's a jackWord not allowed for wanting to continue playing? Got it.

 

He's a jackass for trying to pull one over - see his profuse apology the next day. And still should have putted with the flag in.

[Roadking2003]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

So, he's a jackWord not allowed for wanting to continue playing? Got it.

 

He's a jackass for trying to pull one over - see his profuse apology the next day. And still should have putted with the flag in.

 

He didn't try to pull one over. He expressed his opinion. End of story. It was a very simple and polite discussion. Nobody tried to fool anybody. Did you really see the broadcast?

[DaveLeeNC]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

I'll bet you've sat in scoring as a marker calls out 453 444 463 only to have the player say they had a 5 on number 8. Marker says, okay, and changes the score to a 5.

 

There's a culture in junior golf which regards a player's reporting of his score to his marker as "uncool."

I find that disturbing. Regardless, the player needs to respond when the marker or opponent asks.

 

I have "monitored" a couple of high level junior tennis events. It is almost impossible (not having 'penalty authority') to get the kids to announce the score before serving each point. In this case there are almost always scoring arguments.

 

FWIW, most of my 'monitoring' activities revolved around mis-behaving parents.

 

dave

[davep043]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

So, he's a jackWord not allowed for wanting to continue playing? Got it.

 

He's a jackass for trying to pull one over - see his profuse apology the next day. And still should have putted with the flag in.

He had a preference, he expressed that preference, what's the problem with that? Are you saying he shouldn't have tried to get things done his way, just accept what anyone else wanted without even a discussion? Nobody gets to be as successful as that by letting other people make important decisions for him without his input.

[antip]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules. The marker is not a judge or jury on the rules but they should be bringing any concerns they have to the player or to the Committee.

 

I think everyone in the role of marker should be scrupulously following the requirements of R3.3, which means filling in the player's card along the way and confirming scores after each hole and so on as the rule indicates.

[Mr. Bean]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules. The marker is not a judge or jury on the rules but they should be bringing any concerns they have to the player or to the Committee.

 

I think everyone in the role of marker should be scrupulously following the requirements of R3.3, which means filling in the player's card along the way and confirming scores after each hole and so on as the rule indicates.

 

So... the marker DOES have a different role 'from everyone else in the field', right..?

[nsxguy]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules. The marker is not a judge or jury on the rules but they should be bringing any concerns they have to the player or to the Committee.

 

I think everyone in the role of marker should be scrupulously following the requirements of R3.3, which means filling in the player's card along the way and confirming scores after each hole and so on as the rule indicates.

 

So... the marker DOES have a different role 'from everyone else in the field', right..?

[jmkenn0]

Yeah Phil thought he was going to be slick, hey lets play 17, then just tee off on 18, so he could then plow through and get completed. Good on Casey for calling him out, booo on Phil for not only being a jackWord not allowed, but not very smooth either.

 

So, he's a jackWord not allowed for wanting to continue playing? Got it.

 

He's a jackass for trying to pull one over - see his profuse apology the next day. And still should have putted with the flag in.

He had a preference, he expressed that preference, what's the problem with that? Are you saying he shouldn't have tried to get things done his way, just accept what anyone else wanted without even a discussion? Nobody gets to be as successful as that by letting other people make important decisions for him without his input.

 

So, last comment on this because it is way off-topic. He stated he just wanted to "tee off on 18" when clearly his intention was to race up 18. He knew no one was going to go for letting him finish without casey, so he tried to weasel his way into it, ie, pull one over, by finishing 17, then "just teeing off on 18."

 

So yeah, jackass.

[HitEmTrue]

So, last comment on this because it is way off-topic. He stated he just wanted to "tee off on 18" when clearly his intention was to race up 18. He knew no one was going to go for letting him finish without casey, so he tried to weasel his way into it, ie, pull one over, by finishing 17, then "just teeing off on 18."

 

So yeah, jackass.

 

If he had been able to tee off on 18, it would not have forced Casey to play 18. But it would allow Phil to play it. At least that is what I think he was hoping to accomplish.

 

So he wouldn't have been "pulling one over" on anybody.

 

Anyone know if it could have played out that way?

 

< edit >

Wow, this is thread drift!

[Mr. Bean]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules. The marker is not a judge or jury on the rules but they should be bringing any concerns they have to the player or to the Committee.

 

I think everyone in the role of marker should be scrupulously following the requirements of R3.3, which means filling in the player's card along the way and confirming scores after each hole and so on as the rule indicates.

 

So... the marker DOES have a different role 'from everyone else in the field', right..?

 

Is that big enough..?

[nsxguy]

Interesting conversation, I've worked with referees who make a point in telling junior players they can't run off to the next tee without watching the player they are marking for finish.

 

It does seem to me the intent of a marker is somewhat pointless if a player can just dictate his/her score(s) to another player........although for various reasons this is what often happens.

All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules. The marker is not a judge or jury on the rules but they should be bringing any concerns they have to the player or to the Committee.

 

I think everyone in the role of marker should be scrupulously following the requirements of R3.3, which means filling in the player's card along the way and confirming scores after each hole and so on as the rule indicates.

 

So... the marker DOES have a different role 'from everyone else in the field', right..?

 

Is that big enough..?

 

You (apparently) miss the point.

 

To antip's "All my earlier comments relating to marker were arguing that the marker does not have a role different from everyone else in the field in the shared responsibility of everyone playing by the rules." you snarkily commented "So... the marker DOES have a different role 'from everyone else in the field', right..?" as if antip had ONLY written the first part. IMO trying to "get over" on him. But he DID qualify his remark.

 

In American English the rest of the sentence counts.