Varner ruling.

[szaino]

nsxguy said:

I'm not sure you're getting the point.

 

If I start with 13 clubs and have, say a 3 wood head and a couple of shafts in the bag and after a few holes, noting the wind and/or fairway conditions I might select one head and one shaft and set it up for the way my 2nd shots might play out on the 4 par 5s.

 

Or do you not see that as a "problem" ?

THIS is why the rule is what it is.

Why is there a problem with the above?   

If the player started with 13 clubs, he could add the same club by simply having his swing coach or club tech get the club off the course and bring it to him. These things can be done in minutes.  If a player is "legally" adding a "legal" club, who cares how he puts it into play.   

 

 

[HitEmTrue]

szaino said:

nsxguy said:

I'm not sure you're getting the point.

 

If I start with 13 clubs and have, say a 3 wood head and a couple of shafts in the bag and after a few holes, noting the wind and/or fairway conditions I might select one head and one shaft and set it up for the way my 2nd shots might play out on the 4 par 5s.

 

Or do you not see that as a "problem" ?

THIS is why the rule is what it is.

Why is there a problem with the above?   

If the player started with 13 clubs, he could add the same club by simply having his swing coach or club tech get the club off the course and bring it to him. These things can be done in minutes.  If a player is "legally" adding a "legal" club, who cares how he puts it into play.   

 

Because without this restriction, the player could walk up to the tee and make the decision and quickly build the club.

Or start the round with no fairway woods, tee off on the first par five, and then build the correct loft for the second shot to reach the green...and of course continue the round with that club.

 

This would be effectively the same as having someone carry the extra (assembled) clubs, and then ask that person to hand them the one they want to add to the bag right before hitting the shot.  This is also against the rules, and probably has been for a LONG time.

 

 

 

[szaino]

The club or setup used by a PGA tour player fall within a vary narrow range of parameters. In other words, whatever club they might use, they probably have it or the components ready somewhere.  Also, a player isn't going to have revelation on the first tee.  And, even if he did , he could still add a club very quickly. 

 

Let's not forget the the issue with this penalty.

-A player is still allowed to build the club from components "brought" to him or one's "retrieved" by him and build the club on the course. 

- The above can not be done if the components were being "carried" on the course.  

 

In my opinion the PGA tour made a big mistake by not realizing that there was nothing wrong with Varner adding the club other than he may have not used the "Secret Handshake" to do it. This is where the Tour should have looked for a reason under the rules, not to penalize Varner.

 

It seems more reasonable that the entire series of events leading up to adding the club, were all part of the "bringing/retrieving" process.     

 

The fact that some unrelated party moved the shaft is such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to catagorize this into the "carrying" process.

 

 

 

[rogolf]

I'm willing to bet that the PGATour Committee conferred with the rulesmakers (USGA) before making their final ruling.  It may be the first time that it's come up in the decade or so that the Rule has been in place.

 

[HitEmTrue]

szaino said:

The club or setup used by a PGA tour player fall within a vary narrow range of parameters. In other words, whatever club they might use, they probably have it or the components ready somewhere.  Also, a player isn't going to have revelation on the first tee.  And, even if he did , he could still add a club very quickly. 

 

This isn't a PGA rule.  It's a rule that applies to all golfers.  The makeup of a full set cannot be changed during a round, and if someone starts with an incomplete bag, it should not be so easy to custom-build a set as the round proceeds.

 

Whether or not the player should have received a penalty in this situation is another issue altogether.  I've already voiced concerns.

 

 

[nsxguy]

szaino said:

The club or setup used by a PGA tour player fall within a vary narrow range of parameters. In other words, whatever club they might use, they probably have it or the components ready somewhere.  Also, a player isn't going to have revelation on the first tee.  And, even if he did , he could still add a club very quickly. 

 

Let's not forget the the issue with this penalty.

-A player is still allowed to build the club from components "brought" to him or one's "retrieved" by him and build the club on the course. 

- The above can not be done if the components were being "carried" on the course.  

 

In my opinion the PGA tour made a big mistake by not realizing that there was nothing wrong with Varner adding the club other than he may have not used the "Secret Handshake" to do it. This is where the Tour should have looked for a reason under the rules, not to penalize Varner.

 

It seems more reasonable that the entire series of events leading up to adding the club, were all part of the "bringing/retrieving" process.     

 

The fact that some unrelated party moved the shaft is such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to catagorize this into the "carrying" process.

 

 

A player, finding he needs a club set up a certain way can do so in about 60 seconds if the components are in his possession.

 

If he has to get word to somebody to assemble a club for him and bring it to him, or bring him the components for him to assemble, I expect we're talking a minimum of 5 minutes, possibly 10-15. That would "unduly" hold up play, no ?

[rogolf]

nsxguy said:

szaino said:

The club or setup used by a PGA tour player fall within a vary narrow range of parameters. In other words, whatever club they might use, they probably have it or the components ready somewhere.  Also, a player isn't going to have revelation on the first tee.  And, even if he did , he could still add a club very quickly. 

 

Let's not forget the the issue with this penalty.

-A player is still allowed to build the club from components "brought" to him or one's "retrieved" by him and build the club on the course. 

- The above can not be done if the components were being "carried" on the course.  

 

In my opinion the PGA tour made a big mistake by not realizing that there was nothing wrong with Varner adding the club other than he may have not used the "Secret Handshake" to do it. This is where the Tour should have looked for a reason under the rules, not to penalize Varner.

 

It seems more reasonable that the entire series of events leading up to adding the club, were all part of the "bringing/retrieving" process.     

 

The fact that some unrelated party moved the shaft is such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to catagorize this into the "carrying" process.

 

 

A player, finding he needs a club set up a certain way can do so in about 60 seconds if the components are in his possession.

 

If he has to get word to somebody to assemble a club for him and bring it to him, or bring him the components for him to assemble, I expect we're talking a minimum of 5 minutes, possibly 10-15. That would "unduly" hold up play, no ?

If he stood around and waited for the club, yes, it would delay play, and he would likely get a penalty for unreasonable delay.  He would need to keep playing in the interim.

 

[Roadking2003]

nsxguy said:

Roadking2003 wrote:

deadsolid...shank wrote:

 

What’s bad is I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the rule itself, there were just questions as to if was quite as specific as it needs to be.

 

 

 

I do. The rule is stupid and useless.

 

 

 

Just curious. Is it possible that you read about the reason why that rule is in place ? Yes.  There has to be a better way to write the rule.  It would be easy to prevent wholesale club building and still allow a player to repair a club.  

[Roadking2003]

szaino said:

The club or setup used by a PGA tour player fall within a vary narrow range of parameters. In other words, whatever club they might use, they probably have it or the components ready somewhere.  Also, a player isn't going to have revelation on the first tee.  And, even if he did , he could still add a club very quickly. 

 

Let's not forget the the issue with this penalty.

-A player is still allowed to build the club from components "brought" to him or one's "retrieved" by him and build the club on the course. 

- The above can not be done if the components were being "carried" on the course.  

 

In my opinion the PGA tour made a big mistake by not realizing that there was nothing wrong with Varner adding the club other than he may have not used the "Secret Handshake" to do it. This is where the Tour should have looked for a reason under the rules, not to penalize Varner.

 

It seems more reasonable that the entire series of events leading up to adding the club, were all part of the "bringing/retrieving" process.     

 

The fact that some unrelated party moved the shaft is such a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to catagorize this into the "carrying" process.

 

 

I agree.  It's rulings and rules like this that encourage golfers to ignore the rules and not let them interfere with the primary objective of playing golf which is to have fun.  The rules makers are too often consumed with minutia. 

[Roadking2003]

HitEmTrue said:

szaino said:

nsxguy said:

I'm not sure you're getting the point.

 

If I start with 13 clubs and have, say a 3 wood head and a couple of shafts in the bag and after a few holes, noting the wind and/or fairway conditions I might select one head and one shaft and set it up for the way my 2nd shots might play out on the 4 par 5s.

 

Or do you not see that as a "problem" ?

THIS is why the rule is what it is.

Why is there a problem with the above?   

If the player started with 13 clubs, he could add the same club by simply having his swing coach or club tech get the club off the course and bring it to him. These things can be done in minutes.  If a player is "legally" adding a "legal" club, who cares how he puts it into play.   

 

Because without this restriction, the player could walk up to the tee and make the decision and quickly build the club.

Or start the round with no fairway woods, tee off on the first par five, and then build the correct loft for the second shot to reach the green...and of course continue the round with that club.

 

 

 

And why is that a problem?  

 

[Shilgy]

Road-because that would essentially mean the player is carrying waaay more than 14 clubs and then deciding which 14 to use.

[Roadking2003]

I'm not sure about that. He can already have any number of clubs waiting for him some distance away. So at any time during the round he could call for another club, up to a maximum of 14.

[rogolf]

And the call would have to go to the golf shop or someone in or around the clubhouse, not someone who was on the course carrying the clubs for him or having carried them onto the course for him and just waiting to be called. And then there is the issue of unreasonable delay.

[nsxguy]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> nsxguy said:

>

>

>

> Roadking2003 wrote:

>

>

>

> deadsolid...shank wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> What’s bad is I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the rule itself, there were just questions as to if was quite as specific as it needs to be.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I do. The rule is stupid and useless.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Just curious. Is it possible that you read about the reason why that rule is in place ?

>

>

>

>

> Yes.  There has to be a better way to write the rule.  It would be easy to prevent wholesale club building and still allow a player to repair a club.  

 

I suggest you submit it to the USGA. I'm sure if there's a better way of writing a rule they'd be all ears.

[HitEmTrue]

> @rogolf said:

> And the call would have to go to the golf shop or someone in or around the clubhouse, not someone who was on the course carrying the clubs for him or having carried them onto the course for him and just waiting to be called. And then there is the issue of unreasonable delay.

 

Yep...as the rules are written the player can’t walk up to the shot his about to play and quickly add a club based on what he sees. To be able to do so would skirt the idea behind the 14 club limit.

 

[LeoLeo99]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > And the call would have to go to the golf shop or someone in or around the clubhouse, not someone who was on the course carrying the clubs for him or having carried them onto the course for him and just waiting to be called. And then there is the issue of unreasonable delay.

>

> Yep...as the rules are written the player can’t walk up to the shot his about to play and quickly add a club based on what he sees. To be able to do so would skirt the idea behind the 14 club limit.

>

 

But they could do exactly that. He could message a friend in the parking lot to bring whatever club he wants at that time and the friend could bring the club to the player. Maybe not immediately, but certainly in time for the next shot if the friend was a speed runner. For example, a long par 3 near the parking lot. Not sure if it's a 4 iron or hybrid today. Leave both in the car until you walk off the preceding green. Stop by your car and retrieve the one you want. Certainly not in the spirit of the rules.

[HitEmTrue]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @HitEmTrue said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > And the call would have to go to the golf shop or someone in or around the clubhouse, not someone who was on the course carrying the clubs for him or having carried them onto the course for him and just waiting to be called. And then there is the issue of unreasonable delay.

> >

> > Yep...as the rules are written the player can’t walk up to the shot his about to play and quickly add a club based on what he sees. To be able to do so would skirt the idea behind the 14 club limit.

> >

>

> But they could do exactly that. He could message a friend in the parking lot to bring whatever club he wants at that time and the friend could bring the club to the player. Maybe not immediately, but certainly in time for the next shot if the friend was a speed runner. For example, a long par 3 near the parking lot. Not sure if it's a 4 iron or hybrid today. Leave both in the car until you walk off the preceding green. Stop by your car and retrieve the one you want. Certainly not in the spirit of the rules.

 

Unfortunately you are correct. That doesn’t seem like a good reason the make it even easier to do.

 

( edit ) big ads hitting me after posting. Glad food wrap. :)

 

[cardia10]

I'm glad the rules of golf simplify our game...

[Halebopp]

> @cardia10 said:

> I'm glad the rules of golf simplify our game...

 

Most of the rules make the game easier to play. You don't need to walk back to the clubhouse if you lose a ball, can't keep it on the course or find it in an unplayable lie. Quite often you're not even required to return to where you made your previous stroke from if you hit your ball to a bad place. All of those allowances make the rules more complicated but the game easier. So it's up to you how much of the rules you want to learn and how difficult you want to make the game for yourself.

 

In this case the rule is in place to help a player replace or add a club with certain limitations. The player has every right to not replace clubs broken by others or to add clubs during the round to meet the maximum of 14 clubs. Not doing so keeps the game very simple. But, in case s/he wants to do so, the player needs to do it in a way allowed in the rules and is responsible for knowing the rule.

[cardia10]

My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

[HitEmTrue]

> @cardia10 said:

> My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

 

A few minutes ago you seemed to be saying you want the rules to be simpler.

 

Now I think you are saying that the rules should allow someone to look at a situation, put a finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and make an interpretive decision as to whether the rule should really have to be followed in a specific situation.

 

That certainly wouldn't make things simple.

 

 

[sui generis]

> @cardia10 said:

> My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

 

I'll take these one at a time.

 

"Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

 

Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

 

[cardia10]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @cardia10 said:

> > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

>

> I'll take these one at a time.

>

> "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

>

> Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

>

 

These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

[SNIPERBBB]

You don't read many sports rules books. And outside of MLB OBR, pro rule books are insane, especially in the replay era

[Colin L]

> @cardia10 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @cardia10 said:

> > > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

> >

> > I'll take these one at a time.

> >

> > "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

> >

> > Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

> >

>

> These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

 

You were consulted on the rules changes; I was consulted; every PGA player was consulted. In short, every golfer in the world was consulted. Did you take the opportunity to send your views on the proposals to the USGA?

[Sawgrass]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @cardia10 said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @cardia10 said:

> > > > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

> > >

> > > I'll take these one at a time.

> > >

> > > "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

> > >

> > > Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

> > >

> >

> > These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

>

> You were consulted on the rules changes; I was consulted; every PGA player was consulted. In short, every golfer in the world was consulted. Did you take the opportunity to send your views on the proposals to the USGA?

 

Colin, I don't have much to add to your excellent factual post other than to say it is obscene how people can claim they were not consulted in the most dramatic worldwide golf consultation ever conducted. And then to condescendingly talk about "a hair of common sense!" And to object to "elitists" (I suppose that means people specializing in the development of golf rules) running things? Who else would one want to run things?

[Halebopp]

> @cardia10 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @cardia10 said:

> > > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

> >

> > I'll take these one at a time.

> >

> > "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

> >

> > Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

> >

>

> These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

 

Are you saying the R&A and the USGA are flat-out lying with this statement and the request for feedback, to which many of us here responded, was just a sham (despite the fact they changed a lot of the rules after the feedback period)? And why should the rules be based on how you claim people play golf in just one of the two hundred countries?

 

As work progressed on this initiative, we talked with many different people and organizations

to alert them and to get their preliminary reactions, including:

• Leaders and rules officials from organizations with key roles in professional or

amateur golf, such as the PGA Tour, European Tour, LPGA, Ladies’ European Tour,

PGA of America, Augusta National Golf Club, and national, regional and state golf

associations, and

• Golfers at all levels of the game (both individually and in focus groups), including

professionals and elite amateurs, long-time regular golfers and beginners.

 

[KevCarter]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @cardia10 said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @cardia10 said:

> > > > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

> > >

> > > I'll take these one at a time.

> > >

> > > "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

> > >

> > > Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

> > >

> >

> > These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

>

> You were consulted on the rules changes; I was consulted; every PGA player was consulted. In short, every golfer in the world was consulted. Did you take the opportunity to send your views on the proposals to the USGA?

 

If I may add to this post, the PGA Tour was involved in the changes every step of the way, per their commissioner. It was the responsibility of the PGA Tour to communicate with their players, and educate them, not the USGA.

[sui generis]

> @cardia10 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @cardia10 said:

> > > My argument that many of the rules disallow common sense. Not surprising when you find out many of the individuals coming up with the rules have never played competitive golf.

> >

> > I'll take these one at a time.

> >

> > "Common sense" is a heuristic approach to problem solving that produces optimum results largely by accident. One man's common sense is another's outrage.

> >

> > Secondly, You might want to do a little homework on your second assertion. The Rules Committees of both ruling bodies are comprised of golfers with decades of experience of high level competitive golf and many years in the Rules world. They sought input from all corners of the golf world for the 2019 Rules Modernization program.

> >

>

> These golfers with decades of experience conveniently forget who plays 99% of the rounds of golf in our country, true amateur golfers. According to many PGA pros, they were also not consulted. Just a hair of common sense, where you like it or now, would say that golfers should be consulted when creating golf rules, not elitists in suits belonging to the 1% of private clubs who don't even participate in the handicap system because they make their own handicap rules. Compare a golf rules book to any other major sport and you see why over 95% of golfers don't follow every rule. They are a sad joke.

 

You are seriously under-informed.

[bladehunter]

Sooo. This doesn’t pertain to clubs broken before the round. Lol. I see that now. Please disregard.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usgaranda-reverse-course-allow-replacement-of-damaged-golf-club-with-new-local-rule