Could Augusta National Have a Local Rule Banning Leaving the Pin In?

[BB28403]

An old man in a green jacket is sneaking out at night to bury all the flags!

No flags no rule

[davep043]

Why would they possibly care?

Trying to figure this out too.

 

Somebody clanks one in coming down the stretch or the 18th hole to win the Masters.

 

How would you feel if someone "clanked in" their approach shot for eagle on the 18th hole to win the Masters?

It would be considered one of the greatest shots in major championship history. Walk off eagle for the win.

And if someone makes eagle on 18, the flag would have been in last year too. Nobody is putting for 2 on 18 at Augusta.

[gvogel]

People forget that the "committee" at ANGC couldn't even handle a drop procedure correctly..

 

???? please explain.

 

If they could have, they would have let Tiger off scot free.

 

I don't understand your comment. Tiger clearly violated the rules. ANGC penalized him. What other action could have been done?

 

I believe, but am not sure, that playing from a wrong place and NOT subsequently correcting it, used to be a DQ. :dntknw:

 

That is true, and that was the controversy. Fred Ridley decided to only give him a two shot penalty after the fact (overnight).

[bobcat88]

They can, and I believe the understanding is they will.

[davep043]

They can, and I believe the understanding is they will.

They CAN make any rule they want to. Under the Rules of Golf, they are not permitted to make a rule that would penalize a player for something that is permitted under the rules. If they DO penalize they player, they will have effectively thrown the Rules of Golf out the window.

I don't know where you get your "understanding" from, but you might want to review this article:

https://golfcontentnetwork.com/news/usga-no-authority-for-local-rule-on-flagstick-at-the-masters/

as well as section 8L in Committee Procedures in the Rules of Golf.

[smashdn]

What exactly is the problem here? Players can elect to leave it in if they want but can also still remove the flag. So, be mad at USGA or the player?

 

How would your feelings change if say Brooks Koepka said, "Look I know that leaving the flag stick is an advantage for me but for aesthetics, the patrons and the television viewer I am going to pull the flag every time I am on the green." There'd be twelve threads going saying Brooks is a dumb linebacker.

[Vindog]

What exactly is the problem here? Players can elect to leave it in if they want but can also still remove the flag. So, be mad at USGA or the player?

 

How would your feelings change if say Brooks Koepka said, "Look I know that leaving the flag stick is an advantage for me but for aesthetics, the patrons and the television viewer I am going to pull the flag every time I am on the green." There'd be twelve threads going saying Brooks is a dumb linebacker.

 

Well that would be one way to get the interviews he wants.

[farmer]

What exactly is the problem here? Players can elect to leave it in if they want but can also still remove the flag. So, be mad at USGA or the player?

 

How would your feelings change if say Brooks Koepka said, "Look I know that leaving the flag stick is an advantage for me but for aesthetics, the patrons and the television viewer I am going to pull the flag every time I am on the green." There'd be twelve threads going saying Brooks is a dumb linebacker.

That would be way better than the butt picture.

[legitimategolf]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

[smashdn]

That would be way better than the butt picture.

 

I must out of the loop on this or the joke just went whizzing over my head.

[davep043]

That would be way better than the butt picture.

 

I must out of the loop on this or the joke just went whizzing over my head.

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/photos-koepka-goes-suns-out-buns-out-girlfriend-maldives

[bladehunter]

What exactly is the problem here? Players can elect to leave it in if they want but can also still remove the flag. So, be mad at USGA or the player?

 

How would your feelings change if say Brooks Koepka said, "Look I know that leaving the flag stick is an advantage for me but for aesthetics, the patrons and the television viewer I am going to pull the flag every time I am on the green." There'd be twelve threads going saying Brooks is a dumb linebacker.

That would be way better than the butt picture.

 

He’s done better than that anyway. He came out in two separate instances and called Bryson really slow and said “ that was just Sergio acting like a child “.

 

I’d love to see El Nino and Brooks rolling around on the ground in a hug fight.

 

 

In case you haven’t seen El Niño fight. Check it out

 

[Roadking2003]

People forget that the "committee" at ANGC couldn't even handle a drop procedure correctly..

 

???? please explain.

 

If they could have, they would have let Tiger off scot free.

 

I don't understand your comment. Tiger clearly violated the rules. ANGC penalized him. What other action could have been done?

 

The Masters Committee initially rules that Tiger's drop was fine, when in fact it was yards away according to Tiger's admission. Posters on WRX who aren't even referees noticed that the drop was on the wrong spot. The committee with all of their reviews and angles couldn't (didn't) get that one right. When Tiger admitted to dropping farther back from the spot they had to reluctantly penalize him. So again, If they could have, they would have let him off scot free, but they ended up with eggy face instead, because they couldn't figure out a simple drop procedure.

 

Your memory of the event is not the same as mine. But that's OK.

[rawdog]

What exactly is the problem here? Players can elect to leave it in if they want but can also still remove the flag. So, be mad at USGA or the player?

 

How would your feelings change if say Brooks Koepka said, "Look I know that leaving the flag stick is an advantage for me but for aesthetics, the patrons and the television viewer I am going to pull the flag every time I am on the green." There'd be twelve threads going saying Brooks is a dumb linebacker.

That would be way better than the butt picture.

 

He's done better than that anyway. He came out in two separate instances and called Bryson really slow and said " that was just Sergio acting like a child ".

 

I'd love to see El Nino and Brooks rolling around on the ground in a hug fight.

 

 

In case you haven't seen El Niño fight. Check it out

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

If Brooks did come out (especially after that assless swimsuit photo)... a hug fight with Sergio makes a lot more sense.

[Vindog]

The Masters Committee initially rules that Tiger's drop was fine, when in fact it was yards away according to Tiger's admission. Posters on WRX who aren't even referees noticed that the drop was on the wrong spot. The committee with all of their reviews and angles couldn't (didn't) get that one right. When Tiger admitted to dropping farther back from the spot they had to reluctantly penalize him. So again, If they could have, they would have let him off scot free, but they ended up with eggy face instead, because they couldn't figure out a simple drop procedure.

 

Your memory of the event is not the same as mine. But that's OK.

 

:dntknw:

 

I'm not about to do anyone's research for them, but it's all out there in cyberspace, hell even on this site search bar.

[deadsolid...shank]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

That makes a lot of sense.

[bscinstnct]

They can, and I believe the understanding is they will.

 

You can and you will

 

 

 

 

 

[redfirebird08]

Does anybody really think Fred Ridley is going to turn his back on the USGA?

 

Yeah, I don't see it. Ridley has very deep ties to the USGA.

[new2g0lf]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

[davep043]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

[SurfDuffer]

I think they should ban the flag in the cup. Without a doubt.

[new2g0lf]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

I don't think ANGC wants to be involved in any controversy. I definitely think ANGC is more traditionalist than the USGA and the flag rule would be considered more progressive given it changes a long standing rule, so strange as it seems he used it correctly. .

[davep043]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

I don't think ANGC wants to be involved in any controversy. I definitely think ANGC is more traditionalist than the USGA and the flag rule would be considered more progressive given it changes a long standing rule, so strange as it seems he used it correctly. .

I'm chuckling now. I wonder if anyone can find an example in all of Wrx where the USGA was called "progressive". I do think its amusing, that the USGA gets hammered for being to traditionalist, and when they do get more progressive, they get hammered for being progressive. I wonder if there's any middle ground, some way they could avoid being hammered for the Rules they (and the R&A) have developed.

[pheenomz4774]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

I think anybody playing golf nowadays has at least a little sprinkle of "old and fusty" in them so I think it applies to all of us.

 

Also...the flagstick being in last year saved at least 2 shots from our Master's winner (on 4 and 17 I believe) last year and other than an anecdote in the summary of the tournament, nobody cared. The flagstick can be and absolutely is a help, now it's just a help for everybody from everywhere on the course instead of just off the green. We'll just have to get used to it. I don't think ANGC is willing to swat at the PR bee's nest after getting so much positive spin for their ladies junior and drive, chip, and putt efforts the last couple of years.

[new2g0lf]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

I don't think ANGC wants to be involved in any controversy. I definitely think ANGC is more traditionalist than the USGA and the flag rule would be considered more progressive given it changes a long standing rule, so strange as it seems he used it correctly. .

I'm chuckling now. I wonder if anyone can find an example in all of Wrx where the USGA was called "progressive". I do think its amusing, that the USGA gets hammered for being to traditionalist, and when they do get more progressive, they get hammered for being progressive. I wonder if there's any middle ground, some way they could avoid being hammered for the Rules they (and the R&A) have developed.

 

I think that rule change was progressive but overall the USGA isn't progressive.

[nsxguy]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

 

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

This is a generational thing. I wonder if there's a single teenager who didn't know better/more than his/her parents ? I know *I* certainly did when I was a teen (and in my 20s, 30s, etc........ :rolleyes: )

 

And since golf is generally more available to the older people.................

 

Reminds me of the old saying, "The older I get the smarter my parents get". :lol:

[dalehead]

I could see the old ANGC defying the USGA or whatever. But the new ANGC is warm and fuzzier. They seem at least as committed to "growing the game" as being old and fusty. With all of their recent efforts to include females, juniors and the international community, it could be a bad look if ANGC tried to take an old fusty stand here. And we are just talking about flagsticks here. Take a step back and look at what's really important in the world, and life. This flag rule is not a big deal at all.

I agree, ANGC seems to prefer to stay under the radar these days and I don't think this is an issue they want to smack the hornets nest over.

I'm a little surprised at the "old fusty" comment. Generally in these forums, "old and fusty" is usually applied to the USGA. Now someone says that going against USGA rules would be "old and fusty". So confusing.

 

I think anybody playing golf nowadays has at least a little sprinkle of "old and fusty" in them so I think it applies to all of us.

 

Also...the flagstick being in last year saved at least 2 shots from our Master's winner (on 4 and 17 I believe) last year and other than an anecdote in the summary of the tournament, nobody cared. The flagstick can be and absolutely is a help, now it's just a help for everybody from everywhere on the course instead of just off the green. We'll just have to get used to it. I don't think ANGC is willing to swat at the PR bee's nest after getting so much positive spin for their ladies junior and drive, chip, and putt efforts the last couple of years.

 

Exactly. Part of the game are the good breaks and the bad breaks that come along. A good break is an approach or chip shot that would have gone long past the hole that instead hits the flagstick and goes in. Now the same thing can happen on putts. Is that good or bad? I don't know. But it's your choice. Leave the flag stick in or take it out. Either way you're playing within the rules.

 

 

[legitimategolf]

Does anyone know the reasoning/history behind the old rule, i.e. why was it considered essential that the flag be removed for putting, and when was it enacted?

[KevCarter]

Does anyone know the reasoning/history behind the old rule, i.e. why was it considered essential that the flag be removed for putting, and when was it enacted?

 

Interesting question. I found the following on the USGA website.

 

https://www.usga.org...to-present.html

 

As debate intensified about the need for a common set of rules, The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (referred to as “The R&A” in the rest of this paper as the club’s rule-making responsibilities were transferred to The R&A in 2004) formed a special committee to undertake a major revision of its code. The resulting R&A code of September 1891 was soon widely followed, and several years later The R&A became acknowledged as the rulemaking authority. In 1897, The R&A established its Rules of Golf Committee, leading to the first-ever consolidated code in 1899. This code also had important new provisions, such as a one-stroke penalty (in stroke play only) if a ball was played from within 20 yards of the hole without the flagstick having been removed and the first definition of “out of bounds” (followed three years later by the first rule allowing the play of a provisional ball).

 

...

 

 

The 1956 code eliminated the penalty for a ball hitting an unattended flagstick in the hole when played from the putting green (but by 1968, both rulemaking bodies had agreed to restore the penalty).

[davep043]

Does anyone know the reasoning/history behind the old rule, i.e. why was it considered essential that the flag be removed for putting, and when was it enacted?

There's a discussion of the flagstick here:

http://www.ruleshistory.com/green.html

For most of the known history of the rules, you had to remove the flag when you got within 20 yards. When maintenance standards improved, a definition of the "putting green" was developed, and the old 20-yard criteria changed. For 12 years (1956-1968), the penalty for hitting the flag with a shot from the putting green was removed.

Rules have always been a little different for match play.

My best guess, when golf developed, they simply dug a series of holes somewhere "out there". There was no standard hole size, no hole liner, and no flags. The putting area wasn't maintained much differently than the rest of the course. The game developed with the goal of putting the ball into the hole. The flag was a later addition, to help players find the hole (still guessing here), but as such an addition was probably looked at as some kind of obstruction that should be removed, to maintain the goal of getting the ball into the hole.