I hate the "Leaving the flag in" rule

[bigred90gt]

> @Augster said:

> Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

>

> Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

>

> I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

 

Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

 

If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @Augster said:

> > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> >

> > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> >

> > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

>

> Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

>

> If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

>

 

If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

[Sawgrass]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > >

> > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > >

> > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> >

> > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> >

> > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> >

>

> If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

 

15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

[bladehunter]

What if you accidentally kick it into the pond ? Then putt while he fishes it out ?

[nsxguy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @Augster said:

> > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > >

> > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > >

> > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > >

> > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > >

> > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > >

> >

> > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

>

> 15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

 

Does the interference have to be physical ? Can't seeing a ball near your line of play but not IN your line of play be reasonable interference ?

[Sawgrass]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > > >

> > > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > > >

> > > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > > >

> > >

> > > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

> >

> > 15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

>

> Does the interference have to be physical ? Can't seeing a ball near your line of play but not IN your line of play be reasonable interference ?

 

From 15.3b, see last line:

 

(1) Meaning of Interference by Another Player’s Ball. Interference under this Rule exists when another player’s ball at rest:

• Might interfere with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing,

• Is on or close to the player’s line of play such that, given the intended stroke, there is a reasonable chance the player’s ball in motion could hit that ball, or

• Is close enough to distract the player in making the stroke.

[antip]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @antip said:

> > Played with three strangers today in a Senior's competition **at the local 'prestige' club (that has a 'Royal' designation)**. The flag was not lifted once, on any hole, during the round. And these were not high handicap golfers. In my club and other local competitions, I'm seeing it lifted less and less. And, happily, players are getting better at not damaging the edge of the hole with clumsy hands recovering the ball.

>

> Is one not allowed to name the course they played on ?

 

One is allowed, but one did not.

[antip]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > > >

> > > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > > >

> > > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > > >

> > >

> > > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

> >

> > 15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

>

> Does the interference have to be physical ? Can't seeing a ball near your line of play but not IN your line of play be reasonable interference ?

 

IMO, no and yes (in that order). Seeing a ball 6' from the hole in my field of vision can most certainly be a distraction. You would never see an issue in pro tours with someone asking for such a ball to be marked.

[rogolf]

> @antip said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > > > >

> > > > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > > > >

> > > > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

> > >

> > > 15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

> >

> > Does the interference have to be physical ? Can't seeing a ball near your line of play but not IN your line of play be reasonable interference ?

>

> IMO, no and yes (in that order). Seeing a ball 6' from the hole in my field of vision can most certainly be a distraction. You would never see an issue in pro tours with someone asking for such a ball to be marked.

But then players on the pro tours are not always paragons of the Rules!

 

[antip]

> @rogolf said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > @Augster said:

> > > > > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

> > > >

> > > > 15.3b(2) says the perceived interference must be reasonable. In this case it sounds like it’s not, depending on the distance both players are from the hole.

> > >

> > > Does the interference have to be physical ? Can't seeing a ball near your line of play but not IN your line of play be reasonable interference ?

> >

> > IMO, no and yes (in that order). Seeing a ball 6' from the hole in my field of vision can most certainly be a distraction. You would never see an issue in pro tours with someone asking for such a ball to be marked.

> But then players on the pro tours are not always paragons of the Rules!

>

 

Agreed. But in this space, I think they are on solid ground.

[HatsForBats]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > >

> > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> >

> > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> >

> > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

>

> Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

>

> And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

 

Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

 

So here is your context with mine applied:

 

One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

 

Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

[Newby]

The RoG have nothing to do with a bet on the game. If you want to play with the other two, do so but don't take the bet.

[Sawgrass]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > >

> > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > >

> > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> >

> > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> >

> > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

>

> Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

>

> So here is your context with mine applied:

>

> One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

>

> Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

 

I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

[bigred90gt]

 

 

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > >

> > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > >

> > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> >

> > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> >

> > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> >

>

> If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

 

Perhaps I misread his post. His post, being required to mark the ball only when asked, is exactly as I know the rule to be now. But, he then stated that the ruling bodies missed the opportunity to make that the rule. I was just making sure there was not some rule I was unaware of that always required a player to mark their ball on the green.

 

I have no problem marking my ball if asked, but the guys I play with would never hear the end of how much of a mental midget they are if they asked me to mark a ball that was 6’ out of their line. I no longer play competitive golf, so I’m not concerned about what happens in a tournament. If the Presence of a ball 6’ out of your line bothers you to the point you want someone to mark it, you have the concentration of a gnat, and if you were in my regular group (which consists of guys who have all been friends and golf partners for 10+ years minimum), you would get razzed rather hard for that request.

[HatsForBats]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > >

> > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > >

> > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > >

> > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > >

> > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> >

> > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> >

> > So here is your context with mine applied:

> >

> > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> >

> > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

>

> I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

 

I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

[Sawgrass]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > >

> > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > >

> > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > >

> > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > >

> > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > >

> > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > >

> > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> >

> > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

>

> I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

 

"Dear associates, you can win money by always leaving the flagstick in the hole, you cannot win money if you choose to take it out, but please believe me that I am not forcing/pushing/influencing you to leave it in. 'Cause money simply can't be used in that fashion."

 

Super rational.

[dpb5031]

I see two sides to this argument:

 

HatsforBats likens it to playing an alternate format, similar to playing a 3 club tournament or some variation. It's purely optional, you follow the criteria of the day (3 clubs only) if you want to be part of the competitive wager. Mandating "3 clubs only" takes away each player's option under the rules to use up to 14 clubs.

 

Sawgrass, nsxguy, and others see it as the "Commish" exerting his authority in an attempt to influence or sway everyone in the group (somewhat passive-aggressively) to conform to his preference, which is to leave the flag stick in for all shots. This mandate also takes away each individual player's option under the rules.

 

Mandating either criteria clearly sidesteps the rules of the game, so I'd say in either case, I suppose you're playing something, but it ain't golf...lol! B)

 

I think the real beef here is the perception that the "Commish" is passive-aggressively trying to push **_HIS_** preference.

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @bigred90gt said:

>

>

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @Augster said:

> > > > Not that anyone cares, but I’ve always been against marking the ball. Leave them all on the green and putt them out. Mark only if asked, just like off the green.

> > > >

> > > > Faster and simpler. The ruling bodies missed a chance to do this this year. I also advocated continuous putting. Now that we are able to fix spike marks etc., bring it back.

> > > >

> > > > I’m cool with backstopping as long as no one gets a choice. All balls out on the green or all balls marked and picked up. No penalty for hitting them but also no choices based on how much “you like” the other opponent.

> > >

> > > Maybe I’m missing something here, but is there a rule that actually REQUIRES a player to mark their ball on the green? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

> > >

> > > If I’m 6’ left of the hole from your line, am I required to mark?

> > >

> >

> > If it bothers the other player you are required to lift it, see Rule 15.3b.

>

> Perhaps I misread his post. His post, being required to mark the ball only when asked, is exactly as I know the rule to be now. But, he then stated that the ruling bodies missed the opportunity to make that the rule. I was just making sure there was not some rule I was unaware of that always required a player to mark their ball on the green.

>

> I have no problem marking my ball if asked, but the guys I play with would never hear the end of how much of a mental midget they are if they asked me to mark a ball that was 6’ out of their line. I no longer play competitive golf, so I’m not concerned about what happens in a tournament. If the Presence of a ball 6’ out of your line bothers you to the point you want someone to mark it, you have the concentration of a gnat, and if you were in my regular group (which consists of guys who have all been friends and golf partners for 10+ years minimum), you would get razzed rather hard for that request.

 

Well, you asked for a Rule and I gave it to you. It is up to you how you do or do not use it. I certainly agree with you that a ball almost 2 meters on the side should not bother anyone but we all are individuals. One of my club mates cannot accept anyone standing behind his ball when he is making a stroke, even at a fair distance. We all know it and respect it, no big deal.

[HatsForBats]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > > >

> > > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > > >

> > > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > > >

> > > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > > >

> > > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> > >

> > > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

> >

> > I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

>

> "Dear associates, you can win money by always leaving the flagstick in the hole, you cannot win money if you choose to take it out, but please believe me that I am not forcing/pushing/influencing you to leave it in. 'Cause money simply can't be used in that fashion."

>

> Super rational.

 

I thought it has been mandated that the betting is irrelevant? Or do you now wish to argue that differently than NSXGuy did? Seriously?

 

Anyone that wishes can exercise the choice not to participate that day. If you want to take that as being forced to do something you are definitely not cut-out to be one of the regular guys. Too much drama on your part.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

This thread is starting to remind me of a scene from Weeds.....

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @bigred90gt said:

>

>

> Perhaps I misread his post. His post, being required to mark the ball only when asked, is exactly as I know the rule to be now. But, he then stated that the ruling bodies missed the opportunity to make that the rule. I was just making sure there was not some rule I was unaware of that always required a player to mark their ball on the green.

>

 

 

My understanding is that Augster wants to *disalllow* marking the ball on the green, unless someone asks you to. To me, it wasn't really an "opportunity" that was missed by the ruling bodies.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > >

> > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > >

> > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> >

> > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> >

> > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

>

> Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

>

> So here is your context with mine applied:

>

> One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

>

> Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

 

You are mostly correct. I’d bow out. Probably for good. I just cannot imagine someone implementing a group rule like that. It would never fly in either of our 4 normal groups ( I play in a big pack too). And as much as you won’t believe it. I’m probably the softest spoken guy who tries to just get along of those 12. There’s 3 I could name that would literally say nothing , then get you out in the middle of the round and just blow up. Ruining the round all together.

 

Like I said. If you all 4 Agree pin in. Why the need to announce it as a rule ? That’s the question I’d love to hear the answer to.

[bladehunter]

> @dpb5031 said:

> I see two sides to this argument:

>

> HatsforBats likens it to playing an alternate format, similar to playing a 3 club tournament or some variation. It's purely optional, you follow the criteria of the day (3 clubs only) if you want to be part of the competitive wager. Mandating "3 clubs only" takes away each player's option under the rules to use up to 14 clubs.

>

> Sawgrass, nsxguy, and others see it as the "Commish" exerting his authority in an attempt to influence or sway everyone in the group (somewhat passive-aggressively) to conform to his preference, which is to leave the flag stick in for all shots. This mandate also takes away each individual player's option under the rules.

>

> Mandating either criteria clearly sidesteps the rules of the game, so I'd say in either case, I suppose you're playing something, but it ain't golf...lol! B)

>

> I think the real beef here is the perception that the "Commish" is passive-aggressively trying to push **_HIS_** preference.

>

 

 

100% dead on.

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > >

> > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > >

> > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > >

> > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > >

> > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > >

> > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > >

> > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> >

> > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

>

> I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

 

That logic only works if the group was playing only pin in before the disagreeing player joined. Otherwise. You took his normal game and changed it. So yes. You are forcing him to change. Or the other choice is not play. Which we all know isn’t a real choice. Not if you intend to play. Most don’t have multiple groups they can cal to get up a game. You cut them off and now they are a single at the whim of the pro shop. So not really a choice. Just being forced to play pin in.

[HatsForBats]

> @dpb5031 said:

> HatsforBats likens it to playing an alternate format, similar to playing a 3 club tournament or some variation. It's purely optional, you follow the criteria of the day (3 clubs only) if you want to be part of the competitive wager. Mandating "3 clubs only" takes away each player's option under the rules to use up to 14 clubs.

 

Not exactly but closer.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > > >

> > > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > > >

> > > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > > >

> > > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > > >

> > > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> > >

> > > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

> >

> > I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

>

> That logic only works if the group was playing only pin in before the disagreeing player joined.

 

Put it into context. What date did the rule where leaving the pin in was allowed go into effect? What date is it now? Stop thinking of it as a group rule or that players are trying to make it the way to play going forward. It's just a bunch of curious players trying something brand spanking new as of January 1, 2019. Something that to a player they had not tried before and they had already discussed interest in it as a group going back to November of 2018. Those that don't want to play, in our group, do not get their feelings hurt over something so miniscule as this. Obviously you would and are not our type of player.

 

ie. NOBODY was playing pin in before because it was not a valid option until January 1 of this year. The group could not be playing pin in **before** the first few rounds of the season because it wasn't an option for anyone. Sheesh.

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > > > >

> > > > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > > > >

> > > > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> > > >

> > > > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

> > >

> > > I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

> >

> > That logic only works if the group was playing only pin in before the disagreeing player joined.

>

> Put it into context. What date did the rule where leaving the pin in was allowed go into effect? What date is it now? Stop thinking of it as a group rule or that players are trying to make it the way to play going forward. It's just a bunch of curious players trying something brand spanking new as of January 1, 2019. Something that to a player they had not tried before and they had already discussed interest in it as a group going back to November of 2018. Those that don't want to play, in our group, do not get their feelings hurt over something so miniscule as this. Obviously you would and are not our type of player.

>

> ie. NOBODY was playing pin in before because it was not a valid option until January 1 of this year. The group could not be playing pin in **before** the first few rounds of the season because it wasn't an option for anyone. Sheesh.

>

>

>

 

This is almost May 1. We’ve had the rule 4 full months. Or 1/3 of a calendar year. It isn’t new anymore. I’ve played 33 rounds under the new rules. Even if I joined your group jan1 it would be old hat by now.

 

And by me not being your type of player. Do you mean weak minded and conforming ?

 

Still can’t answer my question above ?

[dpb5031]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hats- I see this as you wanting to assert that nobody in your group will pull the pin. And finding a way to justify that. Which is truly subverting the rule. The rule allows a choice. And no “ you can pull it. But you’re out of the game “ will make it ok. Why not just allow the choice per the rules ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I thought it all started because his regular group game was going to have a ”wacky format” day where the flag would be left in by all players in the game that day. Same concept as a 4 club game, or as a ”putt opposite handed” game. A group of guys imposing some rule that said the flag stays in the hole.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then it snowballed ”what if someone wants it out?” Well that kinda goes against the point of the bet of the day, so hats said anyone who took it out is out of the bet. Seems fair. Someone else said ”would they get a penalty?” And hats said no, but it wouldn’t matter because they are out of the bet. The question (which has merit in my opinion) then arrose and became a sticking point; is such a round being played sufficiently under the rules to be posted for handicap? I’m inclined to say no based on whay I’ve read in the manual about other such formats. I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Personally I’ve been playing rounds where everyone leaves it in for everything, which I don’t like (I like it out) and I’m not one to make a fuss in who-cares rounds anyway, and I don’t speak Finnish well enough to argue the point with the locals.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yep. But the point of that bet for the day was indoctrination. No? I’m sure that would become the game for the next day and so on. That’s what I’m saying. It’s a Trojan horse.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear god. Indoctrination and it would become the game for the next day and so on? Seriously? You and others are trying to make a mountain out of a microscopic mite hill. It's a group of like minded players trying out something they very likely had never tried before (with some of our regulars having been playing 40+ years). If someone didn't want to try it then they should just not get in on that bet and not play with that group that day. If they made this much drama over it then they can take their drama to another group.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just don’t see any reason to take away the choice included in the rule. Unless it’s to force others to do it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is very odd to me that you take that as forcing others to do something. We would expect members of our 'regular guys' that did not want to participate to either just not participate that one round or form a group of their own separate from those that wanted to try out a new option. I don't get why most any adult would feel they were being forced into something given the circumstances. Why can't you just see it for a bunch of players willing to try something brand new, that had been disallowed for so many years before-hand, rather than forcing players to do something they don't want to? Surely you do not need to be a part of every single round your 'regular guys' play, do you?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sort of expected it might be Davep043 that would exercise some common sense.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lol. Man. I’m not being anything but honest. But how can taking away a choice I have that’s given by rule , be anything but someone forcing me to do something ? If it was just my preference sure. Majority rules. But when the rules say it can be either or ? I have a right to say nope.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And for context. I’m looking at this as a regular 4 some. Guys I play with every week for years. If suddenly they said “ we’re all playing a Bridgestone ball now “. Buy some or GTFO ! I’d have the same reaction. The rules allow me the choice of conforming equipment. I don’t have to play what anybody tells me to. And to strong arm that into being. Even for one round is wrong. Think about it. If all 4 of you truly agreed. Would you need the rule ? Nope. You’d all just want it in.

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps that is where you are short circuiting. Applying your context while considering mostly only one part of the context I supplied. For the record there are about 30 players in the 'regular guys' with anywhere from 4 to 25 playing on any given day. However, let's apply it to your context.

> > > > >

> > > > > So here is your context with mine applied:

> > > > >

> > > > > One player from you regular foursome sends out an email today (Tuesday) before your regular round that week (Friday) which would be your second round together in 2019... so the flag in option is brand new to them. It seems the email guy, so and so as well as that other guy in the group have been talking and have decided they will try a full round with the flag in for all 18 holes for the second round of the year. The bet will be net (or gross if you prefer) score but the flag must remain in for all 18 holes in order to be eligible to win the money in the pool. They invite you along to try it if you want.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your reaction to that is you are being forced into playing that way? Or you would try to force them to let you play, and get in on the bet, but with you being allowed to pull the flag? Why wouldn't you just bow out for that one day? Given your reaction I can see you maybe trying to convince the other guys to not play it that way that day but would you really react in the way that you have during this post? It's more than a bit of an overreaction.

> > > >

> > > > I find it stunning that you are unwilling to acknowledge that your plan in presenting this wager is not to force (push? influence?) players to play in a way that limits them. I think it's silly to ask for this, but it's nevertheless a choice you have. But why not admit that it's your goal to force people to play in a specific way?

> > >

> > > I find it stunning that you can't admit that no-one is being pushed to do or even try anything. I'm not sure what planet you are from but my experience in dealing with people is if they don't want to try something they simply decline to go along rather than reacting like they are being forced to do something.

> >

> > That logic only works if the group was playing only pin in before the disagreeing player joined.

>

> Put it into context. What date did the rule where leaving the pin in was allowed go into effect? What date is it now? Stop thinking of it as a group rule or that players are trying to make it the way to play going forward. It's just a bunch of curious players trying something brand spanking new as of January 1, 2019. Something that to a player they had not tried before and they had already discussed interest in it as a group going back to November of 2018. Those that don't want to play, in our group, do not get their feelings hurt over something so miniscule as this. Obviously you would and are not our type of player.

>

> ie. NOBODY was playing pin in before because it was not a valid option until January 1 of this year. The group could not be playing pin in **before** the first few rounds of the season because it wasn't an option for anyone. Sheesh.

>

>

>

 

Hats, you're contradicting yourself here. It was just as much an option for him then to mandate "flag stick in" as it is now, even though prior to the rule change it was not allowed. Either way, your "Commish" is circumventing (if not violating) the ROG.

 

It was previously against the rules to strike the flagstick while putting.

 

It is currently just as much of a violation for your "Commish" to disallow an option for players to remove the flagstick as stipulated by the ROG.

 

May seem trivial, and I'd likely not fuss as a one-off, but I believe the above is a logical response from those who strictly abide by all of the ROG.

[bladehunter]

Hats.

 

You do you by all means. But it’s not a very justifiable stance your taking. Most actions like that have a end goal. A 3 club tournament would be to have fun. To see who was most skilled at adapting etc. pin in only ? The end goal can only be to soften everybody up to the idea. What else ? Please advise.

 

It’s perfectly fine if that’s the idea. Just own it.

[bigred90gt]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> >

> >

> > Perhaps I misread his post. His post, being required to mark the ball only when asked, is exactly as I know the rule to be now. But, he then stated that the ruling bodies missed the opportunity to make that the rule. I was just making sure there was not some rule I was unaware of that always required a player to mark their ball on the green.

> >

>

>

> My understanding is that Augster wants to *disalllow* marking the ball on the green, unless someone asks you to. To me, it wasn't really an "opportunity" that was missed by the ruling bodies.

>

>

 

Like I said, perhaps I misread his post. If that was his intent, indeed I did.