Yet another penalty around new rules error

[Mr. Bean]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Any time I read a title 'This Rule is so unfair' I lose interest and do not read further...

[KevCarter]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Any time I read a title 'This Rule is so unfair' I lose interest and do not read further...

 

Mr. Bean, he is mocking that statement. I think you would enjoy the article!

[Augster]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.com/2019/03/that-rule-is-so-unfair-a-rules-geeks-generalized-guide-to-hot-takes-and-overreactions/

 

Nice article.

 

Very concise and no trolling like you get in rules threads on this site.

 

A good read and thanks for the link.

 

 

[KyGolf]

The caddy rule is simple to understand and enforce. There has to be a line somewhere and the RBs made that line the point where the player begins to take his stance. No need to try to determine intent or any other factor, if they are behind and on an extension of the line the player is penalized. Can't get much simpler than that.

[Swisstrader98]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.com/2019/03/that-rule-is-so-unfair-a-rules-geeks-generalized-guide-to-hot-takes-and-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace?

[sui generis]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace

 

Jump in . . . take it up with Erik. (I know you won't. He, too, knows his onions and would have you for breakfast.)

[Swisstrader98]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace��

 

Jump in . . . take it up with Erik. (I know you won't. He, too, knows his onions and would have you for breakfast.)

 

Would have me for breakfast?? Sounds a bit??????. Not that there’s anything wrong with it

[davep043]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace

That's the problem with most of the rules issues, they're a little too complicated to lend themselves very well to twittering.

Erik, the author of that, runs a rival golf website, many folks here have issues with his "management style". But he is undoubtedly very knowledgeable, and strongly opinionated. He'd be more than happy to discuss things with anyone, but you better come with facts and understanding to back up your opinions.

[KevCarter]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace��

That's the problem with most of the rules issues, they're a little too complicated to lend themselves very well to twittering.

Erik, the author of that, runs a rival golf website, many folks here have issues with his "management style". But he is undoubtedly very knowledgeable, and strongly opinionated. He'd be more than happy to discuss things with anyone, but you better come with facts and understanding to back up your opinions.

 

Love his management style. :good: The problem we have with rules trolls is non-existent. They get outed and slither away quickly. No nonsense!

[davep043]

A worthwhile read is to be found here:

https://rulesgeeks.c...-overreactions/

 

Yes but feel like I just read the first 3 chapters of War and Peace��

That's the problem with most of the rules issues, they're a little too complicated to lend themselves very well to twittering.

Erik, the author of that, runs a rival golf website, many folks here have issues with his "management style". But he is undoubtedly very knowledgeable, and strongly opinionated. He'd be more than happy to discuss things with anyone, but you better come with facts and understanding to back up your opinions.

 

Love his management style. :good: The problem we have with rules trolls is non-existent. They get outed and slither away quickly. No nonsense!

Its off topic here, so I won't comment further, but I know Erik and (usually) like him, but he has very little patience for anyone who can't back up opinions with data and sound logic. That approach turns some people off.

[antip]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

[davep043]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

[Mr. Bean]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

[sui generis]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

[davep043]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

To a certain extent, knowledge and understanding of the rules is a reasonable prerequisite for discussing the rules. Hell, it would make a reasonable prerequisite for making a living playing golf. Don't lawyers and doctors and accountants and engineers and hairdressers and lots of other people have to show they understand the rules governing their profession?

[Swisstrader98]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

 

Oh. You mean a guy with a point of view who doesn’t cower every time some rules guy gets all high and mighty and arrogant about the rules?

 

In my world all of you rules mavens are right up there with the anal and arrogant USGA and these are wildly embarrassing times for both groups. It’s pretty clear that the USGA has screwed the pooch with the new rules and anyone who blindly follows that group and their silly self congratulatory style is equally to blame for the mess that now revolves around the rules of the game.

 

And I should be suspended for having a POV that differs from yours? If the rules geek guy had to do so, it’s pretty obvious that he felt threatened by the guy.

 

Be a Rhino (assuming you’ve read the book). Develop a tougher skin my friend.

[sui generis]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

 

Oh. You mean a guy with a point of view who doesn't cower every time some rules guy gets all high and mighty and arrogant about the rules?

 

In my world all of you rules mavens are right up there with the anal and arrogant USGA and these are wildly embarrassing times for both groups. It's pretty clear that the USGA has screwed the pooch with the new rules and anyone who blindly follows that group and their silly self congratulatory style is equally to blame for the mess that now revolves around the rules of the game.

 

And I should be suspended for having a POV that differs from yours? If the rules geek guy had to do so, it's pretty obvious that he felt threatened by the guy.

 

Be a Rhino (assuming you've read the book). Develop a tougher skin my friend.

 

You do embarrass yourself with great regularity here. :(

[cardoustie]

Based on GC comments last night the rule and/or decision is flawed

 

I like to argue about updating a poorly written rule. NOT enforcing a bad rule as it stands currently written. 2 different scenarios

 

As it is written now, caddie has no intent to line up player .. is it not no penalty?

 

The PGA tour guys are being penalized for a rule written expressly to the stop the LPGA nonsense that was going on and now guys are arguing The RULE IS THE RULE .. really???

[Sawgrass]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

 

Oh. You mean a guy with a point of view who doesn’t cower every time some rules guy gets all high and mighty and arrogant about the rules?

 

In my world all of you rules mavens are right up there with the anal and arrogant USGA and these are wildly embarrassing times for both groups. It’s pretty clear that the USGA has screwed the pooch with the new rules and anyone who blindly follows that group and their silly self congratulatory style is equally to blame for the mess that now revolves around the rules of the game.

 

And I should be suspended for having a POV that differs from yours? If the rules geek guy had to do so, it’s pretty obvious that he felt threatened by the guy.

 

Be a Rhino (assuming you’ve read the book). Develop a tougher skin my friend.

Rules guys like to debate their understanding of the rules in an effort to get a clearer understanding.

 

They are not upset by alternate views, they use them. But they are bored by people who have little understanding calling the rules “stupid” when the person making that claim hasn’t bothered to learn why things have been established as they are. We get that some people who do this are attempting to show how smart they are, but we are not impressed.

 

Seriously, not one rules guy here hasn’t occasionally criticized a rule. But study how they do it.

[HitEmTrue]

As it is written now, caddie has no intent to line up player .. is it not no penalty?

 

It IS a penalty for deliberately standing there. Intent doesn’t matter. It is very simple, and with the revision, comes with a get out of jail free card.

 

[Swisstrader98]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

To a certain extent, knowledge and understanding of the rules is a reasonable prerequisite for discussing the rules. Hell, it would make a reasonable prerequisite for making a living playing golf. Don't lawyers and doctors and accountants and engineers and hairdressers and lots of other people have to show they understand the rules governing their profession?

 

Sure, doctors and lawyers have a set of rules or standards they need to abide by but let’s starts with the simple fact that this isn’t heart surgery...It’s a sport that should have a simple, logical and straightforward set of rules that govern the sport.

 

But for argument’s sake, let’s take a physician’ AMA Code of Ethics as an example and to be fair, these are not laws but rather a set of standards that physicians are expected to abide by. However, if you read the principles of medical ethics, there’s not a single word that’s spoken in anything other than plain and simple English. It’s not open to interpretation or requiring a degree in linguistics to figure out what the AMA’s intent behind a certain principle is/was.

 

Take a look at the Code of Ethics below and then put that side by side with the USGA rule book and tell me which is more understandable.

 

AMA CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS AMA PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS∗

The medical profession has long subscribed to a body of ethical statements developed primarily for the benefit of the patient. As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost, as well as to society, to other health professionals, and to self. The following Principles adopted by the American Medical Association are not laws, but standards of conduct that define the essentials of honorable behavior for the physician.

Principles of medical ethics

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount. IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

[davep043]

Based on GC comments last night the rule and/or decision is flawed

 

I like to argue about updating a poorly written rule. NOT enforcing a bad rule as it stands currently written. 2 different scenarios

 

As it is written now, caddie has no intent to line up player .. is it not no penalty?

 

The PGA tour guys are being penalized for a rule written expressly to the stop the LPGA nonsense that was going on and now guys are arguing The RULE IS THE RULE .. really???

I don't see a way the rule COULD be written based on intent alone. The player and caddie are talking back and forth the entire time the player is taking his stance. How is anyone to know whether caddie is aligning the player, or whether they're talking about the hot chick in the front row? So the rules look at specific actions. its the only enforceable way to do it.

[davep043]

 

To a certain extent, knowledge and understanding of the rules is a reasonable prerequisite for discussing the rules. Hell, it would make a reasonable prerequisite for making a living playing golf. Don't lawyers and doctors and accountants and engineers and hairdressers and lots of other people have to show they understand the rules governing their profession?

 

Sure, doctors and lawyers have a set of rules or standards they need to abide by but let's starts with the simple fact that this isn't heart surgery...It's a sport that should have a simple, logical and straightforward set of rules that govern the sport.

 

But for argument's sake, let's take a physician' AMA Code of Ethics as an example and to be fair, these are not laws but rather a set of standards that physicians are expected to abide by. However, if you read the principles of medical ethics, there's not a single word that's spoken in anything other than plain and simple English. It's not open to interpretation or requiring a degree in linguistics to figure out what the AMA's intent behind a certain principle is/was.

 

Take a look at the Code of Ethics below and then put that side by side with the USGA rule book and tell me which is more understandable.

 

AMA CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS AMA PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS∗

The medical profession has long subscribed to a body of ethical statements developed primarily for the benefit of the patient. As a member of this profession, a physician must recognize responsibility to patients first and foremost, as well as to society, to other health professionals, and to self. The following Principles adopted by the American Medical Association are not laws, but standards of conduct that define the essentials of honorable behavior for the physician.

Principles of medical ethics

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount. IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

Is that really the complete regulations that physicians are required to abide by? I'm guessing its probably not. But that bit is probably comparable to this much of the Rules of Golf:

All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by:

• 
  Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.
  
• 
  Showing consideration to others – for example, by playing at a prompt pace, looking out for the safety of others, and not distracting the play of another player.
  
• 
  Taking good care of the course – for example, by replacing divots, smoothing bunkers, repairing ball-marks, and not causing unnecessary damage to the course.
  

 

And I'm more than willing to go back to the original 14 rules. No drops for obstructions, no drops for temporary water, no lifting the ball on the green, simple, put it on a tee, and pick it out of the hole.. But lets look at the recent changes. The number of rules decreased. The language has been simplified, much closer to common written English. Many issues have been made more consistent across the board. And the pros like most of the changes that make it easier on them, or that decrease their chances of an infraction. But they don't want to actually have to change. One change that has resulted in TWO infractions, over tens of thousands of holes played, has them in an uproar.

[Stuart_G]

I don't see a way the rule COULD be written based on intent alone.

 

Isn't the new version of the Advice rule really based on intent alone?

 

Now whether it's a better way or not is a different question. I think the problem really comes down to defining what exactly defined "assistance in lining up the player". e.g. Isn't pointing out a target helping them line up? They know what they don't want to happen but finding a way to put it in writing isn't as easy as it may first sound. IMO, that was more likely the short coming that dictated the current "solution". They want to impose a very specific restriction that's not so easy to define in words with any clarity.

[Colin L]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Erik's website?

https://thesandtrap.com/

and

https://rulesgeeks.com/

 

Yup, I used to participate in Sandtrap but got fed up with Erik's arrogance. It is his way or the highway. A typical example of a person with compulsive need to be correct, just like bosses used to be some 100 years ago.

 

I remember a swisstrader type of guy there a few years ago. Erik suspended him until he read Tufts. The guy came back briefly and no longer embarrassed himself. ;)

 

Oh. You mean a guy with a point of view who doesn't cower every time some rules guy gets all high and mighty and arrogant about the rules?

 

In my world all of you rules mavens are right up there with the anal and arrogant USGA and these are wildly embarrassing times for both groups. It's pretty clear that the USGA has screwed the pooch with the new rules and anyone who blindly follows that group and their silly self congratulatory style is equally to blame for the mess that now revolves around the rules of the game.

 

And I should be suspended for having a POV that differs from yours? If the rules geek guy had to do so, it's pretty obvious that he felt threatened by the guy.

 

Be a Rhino (assuming you've read the book). Develop a tougher skin my friend.

 

I don't think having a different point of view should be a suspension offence. Being utterly tedious, on the other hand.........

[davep043]

I don't see a way the rule COULD be written based on intent alone.

 

Isn't the new version of the Advice rule really based on intent alone?

 

Whether it's a better way or not is a different question. I think the problem really comes down to defining what exactly defined "assistance in lining up the player". IMO, that was more likely the short coming that dictated the current "solution".

Yeah, that one, and the rule against agreeing to leave a ball in place. Even the rules allowing you to "unintenionally" move a ball without penalty, on the green and when searching, rely on your intent.. To me, rules are generally better, clearer and more enforceable, when they evaluate specific behavior, rather than intent. I think this one they got reasonably right. I can accept the rules about unintentionally moving a ball.. The advice and "backstopping" rules, I'm not crazy about the change in wording,

[SNIPERBBB]

Rhinos are still annoyed by flies. Every sport message board I've ever been a part of that is meant for the discussion of rules and the craft of our professionbas officials have little tolerance for fanboi-ish posters.

[Stuart_G]

To me, rules are generally better, clearer and more enforceable, when they evaluate specific behavior, rather than intent. I think this one they got reasonably right.

 

Well I agree with the first part - but not the second. It's too restrictive IMO since it supports penalties even when the action the rule is intended to prevent is not occurring.

 

But I can't say I have any better ideas - even an intent based version would require written clarification of what exactly the caddie is not allowed to do - which brings us back to the exact same problem as before. For me, the lesser of the two evils would be to dump the new rule all together. Once you grant the caddie the ability to give advice to their player, trying to restrict that advice in some cases but not others is a bit inconsistent.

 

Just look at the new rules for the yardage books and greens diagram. The argument there is that green reading is a skill (just like lining up is supposed to be a skill the player should master) yet the caddie can still help the player read the green. Picking a club, judging yardages, effect of wind or temperature, what to think during the shot, how to stay calm, ..... the list is endless of what could be considered a skill or not. Yet the caddie can help and assist the player on all those other aspects of playing the game. IMO, either don't allow them to help in any way - or don't restrict them in any way. Anything between seems just a bit too contrived and arbitrary to me.

[Newby]

don't allow them to help in any way

That would cause uproar outside the realms of pro golf. Caddies are part of the history (and in some parts of the world part of the local economy).

 

But do you not think the rule is more about the inordinate waste of time having the caddie staring at the hole from behind the player. If the 40 sec is not compulsory, save time by removing a cause.

[Stuart_G]

don't allow them to help in any way

That would cause uproar outside the realms of pro golf. Caddies are part of the history (and in some parts of the world part of the local economy).

 

Yes, I was fully aware of the ramifications of that "option" - and it was a big part of the point I was attempting to make.