2019 And The Pin Is In

[Augster]

I was hoping to play golf tomorrow and have some more pin in our out stories but it’s supposed to be 25 degrees in the morning. Too cold for me. Are any of you guys getting to play some golf?

 

Next week. Going to Florida Thursday-Monday and have 7 rounds planned and maybe 45 a couple of those days, so it’ll be 8 rounds.

 

With those courses, I’ll be plenty versed in the new drop rules by the end of the trip. Flagstick in for me.

[Sawgrass]

I was hoping to play golf tomorrow and have some more pin in our out stories but it’s supposed to be 25 degrees in the morning. Too cold for me. Are any of you guys getting to play some golf?

When you play, it's my recommendation to you that you tell your friends/associates that you will be happy to assist them with the flagstick, but they must tell you what they want: out, in, back in, (before being asked by you if you may help). That's an untested suggestion, but after my first confusing round it's the best I've got.

[antip]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

"Died?" Really? You seem to be devoted to enforcing your personal views of how the rules should work instead of what the rules say. To me, that kind of anarchy is much more likely to lead to the death of the game. (Though neither path will get us to that extreme point.)

 

I'm really surprised that someone with as firm a grasp of the rules as you apparently have is headed in this direction. I suspect lively debates in the future! :drinks:

Saw

I am very happy for you to point out any time you believe I am "devoted to enforcing ..personal views on how the rules should work" or "apparently have headed in this direction". I am here to test myself on the rules situations presented here on the 2019 rules. One of the challenges in that process is ensuring old wiring doesn't get in the way because the changes in most areas are quite dramatic and another issue is the RBs have, in some areas, not fully identified or clarified the implications of the changes - ie there are some teething issues.

 

But I suggest your comment above has made a large error in judgement, something inconsistent with your normal measured and thoughtful approach. You have jumped from one or two specific examples - eg the new R1-2 - on which I agree I was applying old wiring in the bag behind the hole case - to a very broad and sweeping statement that you simply don't have evidence for. If you disagree with that statement then please bring me the evidence of input or rulings on my part that support your case, any time and every time. That is my personal invitation to you. As I am only interested in improving my knowledge of the Rules and applying them appropriately I can assure you I will appreciate any contributions you can make. It's about the rules. That's all.

 

I can only recall one other significant issue in my brief time on this blog (joined two months ago) where I missed a big issue early and then argued down various rabbit holes before ending up in the good place of understanding and wide agreement - and that was the recognition that R8 doesn't apply to removal of LIs and MOs. (You miss one key sentence and you can pay a large price.) On the other side of the ledger, I can point to a very large number of times where I have brought up perspectives and ideas into the discussion that improved the understanding of others. So I find it surprising that you have launched above into "personal" types of comments. I think they should have no part of these Rules discussions.

 

It does appear that there is one area where we seem to have different starting points - this theme of playing in the spirit of the game. Deliberate gaming of the rules, that is deliberately breaking a rule because the player thinks the risk of 2SP is a good deal in particular situation, actions like your bag behind the hole example, IMO, should not be part of the game. You seem to have argued that there is no issue, that 2SP is appropriate punishment so no need to consider the issue further. I finish with this thought: if Phil Mickelson's next major event has him doing that on prime time television, do you think the USGA will be telling the world that is fine, he has gotten the appropriate penalty that fits the crime? (Rhetorical question, I'm not looking for a reaction.)

[deadsolid...shank]

So far, we’re leaving the flagsticks in......since they’re all frozen!

[Sawgrass]

And is subject to Rule 1.2a, disqualification for acting contrary to the spirit of the game.

I think the rulesmakers knew what they were doing. Too many people are picking nits and looking for loopholes. It's just a game, to be played by the Rules for enjoyment, not like taxes.

Agreed. If golf administrators condone 'professional fouls' like the examples we have been discussing with a view such actions are not an issue because the 2SP delivers 'justice', then the game has died.

"Died?" Really? You seem to be devoted to enforcing your personal views of how the rules should work instead of what the rules say. To me, that kind of anarchy is much more likely to lead to the death of the game. (Though neither path will get us to that extreme point.)

 

I'm really surprised that someone with as firm a grasp of the rules as you apparently have is headed in this direction. I suspect lively debates in the future! :drinks:

Saw

I am very happy for you to point out any time you believe I am "devoted to enforcing ..personal views on how the rules should work" or "apparently have headed in this direction". I am here to test myself on the rules situations presented here on the 2019 rules. One of the challenges in that process is ensuring old wiring doesn't get in the way because the changes in most areas are quite dramatic and another issue is the RBs have, in some areas, not fully identified or clarified the implications of the changes - ie there are some teething issues.

 

But I suggest your comment above has made a large error in judgement, something inconsistent with your normal measured and thoughtful approach. You have jumped from one or two specific examples - eg the new R1-2 - on which I agree I was applying old wiring in the bag behind the hole case - to a very broad and sweeping statement that you simply don't have evidence for. If you disagree with that statement then please bring me the evidence of input or rulings on my part that support your case, any time and every time. That is my personal invitation to you. As I am only interested in improving my knowledge of the Rules and applying them appropriately I can assure you I will appreciate any contributions you can make. It's about the rules. That's all.

 

I can only recall one other significant issue in my brief time on this blog (joined two months ago) where I missed a big issue early and then argued down various rabbit holes before ending up in the good place of understanding and wide agreement - and that was the recognition that R8 doesn't apply to removal of LIs and MOs. (You miss one key sentence and you can pay a large price.) On the other side of the ledger, I can point to a very large number of times where I have brought up perspectives and ideas into the discussion that improved the understanding of others. So I find it surprising that you have launched above into "personal" types of comments. I think they should have no part of these Rules discussions.

 

It does appear that there is one area where we seem to have different starting points - this theme of playing in the spirit of the game. Deliberate gaming of the rules, that is deliberately breaking a rule because the player thinks the risk of 2SP is a good deal in particular situation, actions like your bag behind the hole example, IMO, should not be part of the game. You seem to have argued that there is no issue, that 2SP is appropriate punishment so no need to consider the issue further. I finish with this thought: if Phil Mickelson's next major event has him doing that on prime time television, do you think the USGA will be telling the world that is fine, he has gotten the appropriate penalty that fits the crime? (Rhetorical question, I'm not looking for a reaction.)

I fear that I have offended you, if so, I apologize. I was not trying to offend you, I was trying to debate with you. And I wasn't trying to get personal, other than the fact that I am debating something that I believe are your personal views of the rules rather than the rules per se.

 

I'll use the Phil circumstance as an example of my feelings that one should not stretch things and employ a DQ of a player when other remedies are viable. (I believe that's a slippery slope.) Phil, simply put, hit a moving ball. 14-5 says it's a two-stroke penalty in stroke play. One can look to 1-2 also, after all, he was "exerting influence on movement of ball" and a serious breach of 1-2 can lead to DQ. But 1-2 also said that "An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not 1-2." So I steadfastly believe that a 2sp for 14-5 was all that the rules required of Phil.

 

I note that today, 1.2 says that serious misconduct can lead to a DQ. and 1.2a/1 says that an example of serious misconduct is "Deliberately not playing in accordance with the Rules and potentially gaining a significant advantage by doing so, despite incurring a penalty for a breach of the relevant Rule." I understand that this is broader freedom to DQ a player than had previously been the case.

 

In truth, "personally," I don't like that broader freedom. I prefer the rules to avoid subjective calls whenever possible. I don't want refs wielding too much subjective-judgment power. But if Phil were to do this again this year, and I played a role, I would first be obligated to determine whether his action was a potentially significant advantage.

 

This year, in my opinion, the rules suggest that this same conduct would not be a significant advantage, since Phil would suffer even worse consequences than he did last year: he'd be required to replace his ball struck while moving on its original spot, cancel the stroke, and play again after adding a 2SP. So, to provide the unwanted answer to your rhetorical question, I would hope that the USGA would once again tell the world that this conduct has been dealt with by the rule involved and is not subject to a serious misconduct DQ. There is no potential significant advantage, so no potential serious misconduct.

 

Having said all that, I hate the fact that Phil did this, and hope that he will never do it again. But I don't want my (or anyone else's) disgust at his behavior to lead to a DQ. IMO that would be more of a violation of the spirit of the game than was the ill-advised action that he took.

[nsxguy]

I probably don't watch as much golf on TV as many others but it seems to me that more and more players are leaving the pin IN.

 

It's a revolution I tell ya !!! :ok:

[hahanice]

I've more or less always left it in when playing alone, which is a lot.

 

played twice this week. first round, one person had a nice soft putt get rejected by the pin. windy but still. Someone else then had a firmer putt that rolled right over the back. I am inclined to believe it would have gone in with a pin. So let's call it even.

 

played yesterday and rolled one nice and firm right over the cup. I hit the put with the pin in and one of my playing partners pulled it...

[Mr. Bean]

BTW, your English in your post 182 seems perfect to me.

 

You are too kind...

[antip]

 

I fear that I have offended you, if so, I apologize. I was not trying to offend you, I was trying to debate with you. And I wasn't trying to get personal, other than the fact that I am debating something that I believe are your personal views of the rules rather than the rules per se. THANK YOU FOR YOUR POST. BUT THE LAST SENTENCE ABOVE SUGGESTS I AM FAILING TO MAKE MYSELF UNDERSTOOD. I THINK IT INAPPROPRIATE AND DISTRACTING (TO THE RULES DISCUSSION) TO USE LANGUAGE OF "I BELIEVE THAT IS YOUR PERSONAL VIEW AND NOT WHAT THE RULES SAY". BELIEVE IT ALL YOU WANT BUT DON'T POST THAT - BECAUSE MANY READERS WOULD REASONABLY INTERPRET THAT AS A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM NOT CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WHAT IS IN THE RULES AND WHAT I WANT THEM TO SAY AND THAT YOU ARE PERSON QUALIFIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. IMO, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR SUCH STATEMENTS IN A RULES DISCUSSION THAT TREATS EVERYONE WITH RESPECT. MY REQUEST IS KEEP POSTED MATERIAL TO A RULES FOCUS AND DON'T GO NEAR ANYTHING THAT GETS PERSONAL, EVEN WHEN YOU ARE 'NOT TRYING TO GET PERSONAL' (ANOTHER OUTCOME VS INTENT DIMENSION!).

 

I'll use the Phil circumstance as an example of my feelings that one should not stretch things and employ a DQ of a player when other remedies are viable. (I believe that's a slippery slope.) Phil, simply put, hit a moving ball. 14-5 says it's a two-stroke penalty in stroke play. One can look to 1-2 also, after all, he was "exerting influence on movement of ball" and a serious breach of 1-2 can lead to DQ. But 1-2 also said that "An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not 1-2." So I steadfastly believe that a 2sp for 14-5 was all that the rules required of Phil.

 

I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW BUT I DON'T SHARE IT. 1-2 WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A GET OUT OF JAIL CARD FOR APPALLING BEHAVIOUR (THAT THE USGA, IMO, FAILED TO CALL FOR WHAT IT WAS). THE FACT THAT THAT 'TECHNICAL DEFENCE' HAS SINCE BEEN FORMALLY ERASED FROM THE STATUTES SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY; I AM NOT ALONE.

 

I note that today, 1.2 says that serious misconduct can lead to a DQ. and 1.2a/1 says that an example of serious misconduct is "Deliberately not playing in accordance with the Rules and potentially gaining a significant advantage by doing so, despite incurring a penalty for a breach of the relevant Rule." I understand that this is broader freedom to DQ a player than had previously been the case. I'M ON BOARD WITH THIS PARAGRAPH.

 

In truth, "personally," I don't like that broader freedom. I prefer the rules to avoid subjective calls whenever possible. I don't want refs wielding too much subjective-judgment power. But if Phil were to do this again this year, and I played a role, I would first be obligated to determine whether his action was a potentially significant advantage.

 

I AGREE SUBJECTIVITY IS AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES SENSITIVE MANAGEMENT AND I DON'T BELIEVE SUCH CALLS SHOULD BE THE ISOLATED PREROGATIVE OF THE WALKING/ROVING REFEREE - SUCH IMPORTANT DECISIONS NEED TO BE ON A COMMITTEE/TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATOR LEVEL.

 

This year, in my opinion, the rules suggest that this same conduct would not be a significant advantage, since Phil would suffer even worse consequences than he did last year: he'd be required to replace his ball struck while moving on its original spot, cancel the stroke, and play again after adding a 2SP. So, to provide the unwanted answer to your rhetorical question, I would hope that the USGA would once again tell the world that this conduct has been dealt with by the rule involved and is not subject to a serious misconduct DQ. There is no potential significant advantage, so no potential serious misconduct.

 

I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE. IT IS NOT A TEST OF WHETHER THERE IS/WAS A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE. IT IS ABOUT POTENTIAL. AND IN CONSIDERING POTENTIAL THAT IS NOT LIMITED TO ONLY THE OPTIMAL ALTERNATE CASE THAT THE PLAYER MAY FOLLOW, SUCH AS PLAYING AGAIN UNDER STROKE AND DISTANCE AND 'POTENTIALLY' THEN PLAYING THE PERFECT SHOT. IN THE PHIL CASE THERE WAS POTENTIALLY A HUGE ADVANTAGE IF THE PLAYER TOOK STROKE AND DISTANCE AND THEN REPEATED THE SAME SHOT AS PREVIOUSLY.

 

Having said all that, I hate the fact that Phil did this, and hope that he will never do it again. But I don't want my (or anyone else's) disgust at his behavior to lead to a DQ. IMO that would be more of a violation of the spirit of the game than was the ill-advised action that he took. AGAIN, ON THIS LAST SENTENCE, I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE.

 

Saw

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I have put my direct comments into your post above in block so they are easily identified. I don't think there is any more that needs to be said, I respect that your views are different on some of these issues and I continue to look forward to your contributions on other threads.

[HitEmTrue]

antip, certainly you can see that your statement, “then the game has died,” is a personal view. Methinks you have read far too much into Sawgrass’ comments.

[antip]

antip, certainly you can see that your statement, "then the game has died," is a personal view. Methinks you have read far too much into Sawgrass' comments.

Nothing wrong with personal views/opinions. Many contributors come here for the specific reason of sharing personal views on various matters golf. And nothing wrong with saying I take a different view and here are my reasons.

 

My request is unrelated to that, it is don't target personal views at another contributor. Play the issue, not the person. Don't talk about what you think someone else is devoted to... Don't talk about what direction you think someone else is heading down... Don't infer someone who has aired a view you disagree with is not capable of applying the Rules of golf at least as well as you can.

 

I have no interest in extending this discussion further, I'm sure others would feel the same.

 

Has someone got a rules question we can play with?

 

BTW, I'm intrigued, who is the golfer in your top left picture? And was it the 50s?

[HitEmTrue]

That’s Byron Nelson...I’m guessing in the mid 1940’s.

 

[Golfnuck]

Played again with my regular group this weekend.

 

Kinda settling into the new flag rule and generally if one person asks for the flag to be pulled the rest putt with the flag out and if no-one asks for the flag to be pulled then everyone putts with the flag in.

 

However an interesting situation came up.

 

I had a downhill side-hill putt and the guy closest to the cup says to me in or out and I say in. It was loud enough for the guy behind him to hear it.

 

Once the ball was on the way he pulled the flag out. The ball went in.

 

The guy behind the guy holding the flag jokingly says to me sorry but you'll have to re-putt that because you asked for the flag to stay in and Gary (not the real name of the guilty party) pulled the pin.

 

Hahaha and we went onto the next hole.

 

But at the next hole I asked out loud what if I was playing a match or in the club championship and this happened what should I do and who, if any, should get a penalty?

[antip]

Played again with my regular group this weekend.

 

Kinda settling into the new flag rule and generally if one person asks for the flag to be pulled the rest putt with the flag out and if no-one asks for the flag to be pulled then everyone putts with the flag in.

 

However an interesting situation came up.

 

I had a downhill side-hill putt and the guy closest to the cup says to me in or out and I say in. It was loud enough for the guy behind him to hear it.

 

Once the ball was on the way he pulled the flag out. The ball went in.

 

The guy behind the guy holding the flag jokingly says to me sorry but you'll have to re-putt that because you asked for the flag to stay in and Gary (not the real name of the guilty party) pulled the pin.

 

Hahaha and we went onto the next hole.

 

But at the next hole I asked out loud what if I was playing a match or in the club championship and this happened what should I do and who, if any, should get a penalty?

Accidental miscommunication like this gets no penalty to anyone. If 'Gary' did it deliberately after hearing your 'leave it in' instruction, he gets the general penalty.

[jmkenn0]

Watched a little bit of golf this weekend, the two places I definitely saw it employed, very long putts, and kick-ins. I don't generally have a lot of kick-ins, or we are playing some sort of match and people are giving 1-2's, but you can see that generally speeding things up fractionally. Plus PGA players have caddies to hold/tend/put the flag back in.

 

My club uses the metal poles (wind/deer related), but I'm wondering if there will be a clamoring to go to fiberglass? Ours are definitely on the higher end of COR/width.

[Sawgrass]

Watched a little bit of golf this weekend, the two places I definitely saw it employed, very long putts, and kick-ins. I don't generally have a lot of kick-ins, or we are playing some sort of match and people are giving 1-2's, but you can see that generally speeding things up fractionally. Plus PGA players have caddies to hold/tend/put the flag back in.

 

My club uses the metal poles (wind/deer related), but I'm wondering if there will be a clamoring to go to fiberglass? Ours are definitely on the higher end of COR/width.

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I feel an aversion to potentially hitting the flagstick with my putter's face when the ball is kick-in close. I wonder if I might flinch and miss. Or instead look rather dorkish pulling out the pin for a one-footer.

 

I may have to write to Dear Abby about this . . .

[jmkenn0]

Just have you caddy line you up :)

[mocokid]

I guess someone has mentioned this.

Over a thousand rounds or so of missing short makeable putts, I've taken the putt over with the pin in, and banged in dead center hitting the pin firmly and dropping right down, so YES to pin in, every week end golfer should know this is a gimme.

[antip]

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I feel an aversion to potentially hitting the flagstick with my putter's face when the ball is kick-in close. I wonder if I might flinch and miss. Or instead look rather dorkish pulling out the pin for a one-footer.

 

I may have to write to Dear Abby about this . . .

Abby is a golfer, she's expecting your letter...

[CheckJV]

Played my 3rd round of the year in a foursome and we did not take the pin out all day. Really quickened the pace of play on the greens.

[Bonneville85308]

I played with 3 random strangers yesterday, after some confusion/awkwardness regarding "pin in or out" on #1 green, we all decided to leave it in unless someone asks for it to be out. After that, I don't think anyone asked for it to be taken out. I think it definitely saved a few minutes on the round, especially where one person had a long putt and would normally wait for someone to go to the pin, ask if they wanted it removed or tended, etc. We all made plenty of putts and I don't think any misses could be blamed on the pin being in.

 

Going forward on rounds with strangers I think I am just going to ask on #1 if they are cool with leaving it in at all times unless someone asks for it to be out. I imagine there will still be people who don't know about the rule change or would rather have it out on all putts. I used to play the majority of my rounds by myself playing alone and always left the pin in, so I'm completely comfortable with it.

[nsxguy]

I played with 3 random strangers yesterday, after some confusion/awkwardness regarding "pin in or out" on #1 green, we all decided to leave it in unless someone asks for it to be out. After that, I don't think anyone asked for it to be taken out. I think it definitely saved a few minutes on the round, especially where one person had a long putt and would normally wait for someone to go to the pin, ask if they wanted it removed or tended, etc. We all made plenty of putts and I don't think any misses could be blamed on the pin being in.

 

Going forward on rounds with strangers I think I am just going to ask on #1 if they are cool with leaving it in at all times unless someone asks for it to be out. I imagine there will still be people who don't know about the rule change or would rather have it out on all putts. I used to play the majority of my rounds by myself playing alone and always left the pin in, so I'm completely comfortable with it.

 

You bring up an interesting point; "peer pressure".

 

I haven't played but one scramble round in the last 3 weeks due to a small health issue and unusually bad weather on "play days", but right before that (after Jan 1 of course) I played a couple of regular rounds with my group.

 

I'm the lowest handicapper in the group and I'd decided to leave it in. No problem if others wanted it out. In fact, I was usually the one handling the pin since I was usually the closest.

 

After about 4 or 5 holes the guys who wanted it out just said "That's fine, leave it in",,,,,,,,,,,,, for the most part. For "makeables", say 3-15 feet they sometimes wanted it out, sometimes left it in. :beruo:

[Halebopp]

Another test:

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/putting-with-the-flagstick-in-could-be-a-mistake-new-golf-digest-study-from-cal-poly-professor-shows

[antip]

Another test:

 

https://www.golfdige...professor-shows

Valuable contribution, testing for relevant issues a number of other studies ignore, particularly flagstick variations and low side/high side approaches. Would like to see it extended for slightly slower speeds, testing in wind conditions and to do higher numbers of repetitions. It seems we are nowhere near a science-based consensus on the answers yet - the sellers of ball rolling equipment must be rolling in it.

[Newby]

Useful but there was a notable shortage of shorter or slower putts. How many putts would be so 'over long' normally?

[Sawgrass]

I played yesterday on a peculiarly nice 60* Connecticut February day. While the air was warm, you couldn't get a tee into the ground -- and more to the point, most of the holes were filled with water, and there was still a big glob of ice which held the flagstick in place. If you were to try to pull it, you'd have a flagstick/hole liner combo in your hand.

 

All this lead to a fine time to practice putting against the flagstick. I'm pretty sure it cured me of the bother to pull it. And I noticed what seemed to be a great time-saver that I hadn't noticed before: when all four players leave the flagstick in, even on short putts, the three of them who are already finished all tend to move toward their bags, and not linger in order to replace the flagstick after the last putt. That lingering had kind of been a respectful group function in the past, but without a practical function behind it, it disappeared.

 

I also got to walk out onto a frozen pond about 5 yards. Despite both feet being on sheer ice, I managed to hit my ball sitting up pretty on top of the ice with a 3/4 swing, and managed not to fall as well.

[davep043]

Useful but there was a notable shortage of shorter or slower putts. How many putts would be so 'over long' normally?

I saw at least a few players in Phoenix who had 5 or 6 foot comeback putts this past weekend. If those guys do it occasionally, the rest of us are doing it too, and probably more often. But I do agree, most of the studies have been for putts that would otherwise roll 3 feet or more past the hole. I'd like to see more work done with putts rolling at more appropriate speeds.

[Simp]

I tried it this past Saturday and it wasn't for me. After 30 years of putting with the flagstick out I'll continue to leave it out.

[Cottonseed.]

Another test:

 

https://www.golfdige...professor-shows

I'm now deeply bewildered about how to handle the pin situation.

 

I may just stop putting all together and pick my ball up once it gets on the green.

[Newby]

Useful but there was a notable shortage of shorter or slower putts. How many putts would be so 'over long' normally?

I saw at least a few players in Phoenix who had 5 or 6 foot comeback putts this past weekend. If those guys do it occasionally, the rest of us are doing it too, and probably more often. But I do agree, most of the studies have been for putts that would otherwise roll 3 feet or more past the hole. I'd like to see more work done with putts rolling at more appropriate speeds.

 

I have always felt that we lowly players tend to leave more short than very long. From the odd comment in the clubhouse players are 'attacking' the hole more.

But I haven't been on the course recently