I hate the "Leaving the flag in" rule

[dpb5031]

This reminds me of a Titanic Thompson (golf's greatest hustler) story:

 

I forget the exact details, but Thompson was a pretty good player, but a much better gambler. He challenged a young pro to a match for a substantial sum, taking no strokes, but with the agreed upon stipulation that Thompson would get a certain number of "ball-in-hand throws" over the course of the match. The young-gun figured, how much of an advantage could it possibly be for Thompson to throw his ball rather than hit it with his clubs?

 

Well, you can imagine the young pro's surprise when after puring an approach shot to 2 feet, Thompson picked up his (the pro's) ball and tossed it into an adjacent pond...lol! Thompson had intentionally never specified whose ball he'd be throwing...lol!

 

No wonder one of his more notable quotes was, "gambling's a tough way to make a living; sometimes you wake up dead!"

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @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.

>

>

Not a problem...I remembered @Augster talking about it before. He will pipe in to clarify if I'm off the mark.

 

 

[Augster]

During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

 

Sadly, they didn’t take my suggestions.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled arguem....discussion. :)

[HatsForBats]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @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.

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18883942#Comment_18883942

 

> @bladehunter said:

> 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.

 

What else... I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

 

For those that have expressed interest in playing a round that way since they had never been allowed to do it before. There is no softening up everyone else to play that way even on a one-off, or a two-off and definitely not an ongoing basis. You are just paranoid and **greatly** overacting to a small group of players wanting to try something that is brand new to them. It's just a group of players that have expressed interest in trying what, according to the USGA is allowed, and expecting those that are not interested to bow out or 'commish' their own game for that day.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Augster said:

> During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

>

 

So... no cleaning of your ball unless asked by someone else? Sounds like speed golf and that's another sports.

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @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.

>

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18883942#Comment_18883942

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > 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.

> L

 

 

Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

[HitEmTrue]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Augster said:

> > During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

> >

>

> So... no cleaning of your ball unless asked by someone else? Sounds like speed golf and that's another sports.

 

And if the other guy notices your mud ball, he may decide to not ask you to mark your ball. Just because.

 

 

[Augster]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Augster said:

> > During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

> >

>

> So... no cleaning of your ball unless asked by someone else? Sounds like speed golf and that's another sports.

 

No cleaning your ball. On the green being asked to pick up is the same as off the green. No cleaning.

 

Marking and lining up the stupid line on the ball, then walking around and then readjusting the stupid line takes way too much time. Marking your ball 1 foot from the cup because “I don’t want to step in someone’s line” just wastes time. Continuous putting.

 

The ROG wanted simpler rules and faster play. They missed an opportunity on the greens.

 

 

[nsxguy]

HERE is what you posted as your “Conditions of Competition”

 

> @HatsForBats said:

> Hello 'Regular Guys',

>

> As many of you know the 2019 rules of golf allow for the flag to be left in at all times. In order to experiment with this possibility **the format for the round on xx/yy/2019 will be Mandatory flag in for a full 18 holes.** As always everyone is welcome to participate but must follow the rules of the days game in order to be eligible for 'prizes' associated with this days format. If you love it or hate it come on out and prove your theory right, wrong or remain indifferent.

>

> If you are not open to this format the next events will be xx/yy+2/2019 and then another on xx/yy+3/2019. Those events will be 'normal' rounds. We sincerely hope your delicate feelings are not hurt if **you** **_choose_** not to participate.

>

> Peace, Love and understanding,

> _The Commish_

 

Later on, after you said you didn't want to bother the USGA, you said.

 

 

> @HatsForBats said:

 

> The USGA response is agreeing to leave the flag is not agreeing to ignore a rule. Sorry.

 

Then, after being asked what the question was you said.

 

> @HatsForBats said:

> I asked if the group could agree before the round to play flag in for all 18 holes and specifically if it would be ignoring a rule to do so.

 

Which, of course, it was already agreed upon that you COULD do.

 

So then, of course, I sent in the REAL question, as per your "Commish" post

 

> @nsxguy said:

 

> Here is what *I* sent the USGA.

>

> _**"Can the Committee running an event under the Rules of Golf MANDATE that the flagstick stays IN (OR the flagstick always is taken out) for all putts by all players as part of the Conditions of Competition ?"**_

>

> Reply - No.

>

>

 

So, since you are not permitted to waive a ROG you are NOT playing under the ROG. It's really just that simple.

 

Basically it shouldn't surprise anyone by now that you will re-phrase, re-write and otherwise try to obfuscate your position ad infinitum.

 

Do whatever you want but don't fool yourself that the Rules permit you to. And if you're not playing under the ROG your rounds are not postable. Same goes for max 4 clubs. I believe that is actually is a permitted/recognized form of play under the ROG but said rounds are NOT allowed for handicap posting.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Augster said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

> > >

> >

> > So... no cleaning of your ball unless asked by someone else? Sounds like speed golf and that's another sports.

>

> No cleaning your ball. On the green being asked to pick up is the same as off the green. No cleaning.

>

> Marking and lining up the stupid line on the ball, then walking around and then readjusting the stupid line takes way too much time. Marking your ball 1 foot from the cup because “I don’t want to step in someone’s line” just wastes time. Continuous putting.

>

> The ROG wanted simpler rules and faster play. They missed an opportunity on the greens.

>

>

100% agree. I'd propose that you can clean it once(if you must) and then only get to mark/touch the ball again if it's near someone's line.

 

But one step at a time and I embrace this new "pin in" option as do my partners thus far.

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Augster said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > During the ruling bodies “suggestion” period, that is what I advocated for. No marking unless asked. Pin in only. Continuous putting. All those would simplify and speed up the game.

> > >

> >

> > So... no cleaning of your ball unless asked by someone else? Sounds like speed golf and that's another sports.

>

> No cleaning your ball. On the green being asked to pick up is the same as off the green. No cleaning.

>

> Marking and lining up the stupid line on the ball, then walking around and then readjusting the stupid line takes way too much time. Marking your ball 1 foot from the cup because “I don’t want to step in someone’s line” just wastes time. Continuous putting.

>

> The ROG wanted simpler rules and faster play. They missed an opportunity on the greens.

>

>

 

Pace of play is all about doing right things at the right time and not doing the wrong things at all. Marking, lifting, cleaning and replacing a ball takes no more than 15 seconds and that 15 seconds only concerns the first one to play. All the others are doing their cleaning when it is not their turn to play so it does not slow down play at all.

 

I make an equal suggestion to yours. Once you get to your ball you have 10 seconds time to hit it. This will speed up the game, don't you think?

[Hawkeye77]

All this brings to mind is I never saw a single episode of “The Commish”.

[nsxguy]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> All this brings to mind is I never saw a single episode of “The Commish”.

 

You'll never know what you're missing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, neither will I. LOL

[Augster]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

 

> I make an equal suggestion to yours. Once you get to your ball you have 10 seconds time to hit it. This will speed up the game, don't you think?

 

Not equal. Not close. Complete non sequitur.

 

[Vindog]

 

 

I think that not being able to clean your ball is contrary to what the view of green play should be. In the general area, play is mainly through the air, or at least, not expected to be solely along the ground. On the green, the play is a rolling shot, so we are allowed to repair marks and clean the ball so that we can play the required shot.

 

So I'm not really surprised that this suggestion didn't fly. But there's no hurt in trying.

 

 

[davep043]

> @Vindog said:

>

>

> I think that not being able to clean your ball is contrary to what the view of green play should be. In the general area, play is mainly through the air, or at least, not expected to be solely along the ground. On the green, the play is a rolling shot, so we are allowed to repair marks and clean the ball so that we can play the required shot.

>

> So I'm not really surprised that this suggestion didn't fly. But there's no hurt in trying.

>

>

 

Up to about 1960, you weren't allowed to lift your ball on the putting green unless requested, so obviously you couldn't clean it. You couldn't repair ball marks. Since that time, underground irrigation systems have become prevalent, agronomy has improved, and maintenance has improved, so now we have expectations of a perfect roll on a perfect surface. The rules changes, marking, cleaning, repair of damage, all are a reflection of the changing attitudes of the putting green as a "sacred and perfect" place. At least one person disagreed with the first changes way back in 1960.

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

I don't see them reversing those rules changes.

[dpb5031]

I'm sorry, but those advocating prohibiting cleaning and marking a ball on the green must not play for anything. If you're in a hurry and just out there slapping it around, where no shot matters for anything... maybe just go to the range instead of the course?

 

Slow players will be slow...period. They lack awareness, and are often selfish. Altering the rules with the expectation of improved pace of play is a folly exercise. The most critical component to pace of play is very simple, be ready to hit when it's your turn, and play "ready golf" when at all possible. I'd say the difficulty of the golf course, especially in terms of propensity to lose golf balls, has the next greatest influence.

 

I recently moved to FL. Pace at my new club is almost exactly 4 hours or a tad under. There are few places to lose golf balls, you're either in play, or obviously in the water...lol. My previous club in NJ had waste high fescue in play on almost every hole which meant lots of searching. The regular pace there was about 4:35, and on a busy day it could stretch to nearly 5 hours, which can certainly be a little frustrating if you let it get to you.

 

I hate to wait behind a slow group as much as anyone, but I dont understand some folk's obsession with pace. Some guys just can't wait to get aggravated about it, and will literally rush up behind another group just to whine & complain...lol!. I've seen it a million times with certain guys I play with; they literally let it ruin their day. I just try to adapt to the pace of the day while remaining ready to hit when it's my turn.

 

Why are we in such a hurry to "get it over with" anyway? Is that extra 15 or 20 min out there with your buds doing something that you supposedly love really gonna ruin your day?

[HatsForBats]

> @bladehunter said:

> Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

 

Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

 

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

>

> Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

>

 

I just don’t follow. Are we talking 4 guys or 30 ? ( or whatever large number ). If so surely you don’t think that all of those guys want to play flag in ? And if not how isn’t it making someone else play that way ?

 

Are you trying to say that you are attracting more players with that rule?

[Sawgrass]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

>

> Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

>

So, you're fine with your behavior, your group is fine with your behavior, but some other people find it odd, irrational or irritating. Can't you just leave it at that?

 

No one is going to convince anyone else of their POV at this point.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

> >

> > Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

> >

>

> I just don’t follow. Are we talking 4 guys or 30 ? ( or whatever large number ). If so surely you don’t think that all of those guys want to play flag in ? And if not how isn’t it making someone else play that way ?

>

> Are you trying to say that you are attracting more players with that rule?

 

X = All players who have had their email added to the 'regular guys' list

Y = A subset of X which is the number of players that had discussed wanting to play a round that way

Z = Player that does not want to play flag in

C1 = Commish (person sending out a group email to all of the players in X)

 

Does anyone in Y think that everyone wants to play flag in? Probably not but this is why C1 sends an email to group X to see who **IS** interested in playing that way. How isn't this forcing someone to play that way? Player Z of group X does not have to agree to play with the subset group Y that day. Player Z is free to become C2 (Commish #2 for that day) and send an email to all of group X forming a different get together for the same day and relative time if they wish.

 

Is it attracting more players? Probably more than just those already in group Y because not everyone in group X was part of the initial discussion. Not sure how groups on your planet communicate but ours use email and texts to invite all, most, some or an even a smaller sub-group to play on any given day. There are likely those that do want to play that way and some that don't. We don't all have to hold hands and all play together every single round. There are 200+ days per year where a player from group X can play with a handful up to most of the 'regular guys'. Some days there can be 4+ different 'regular guys' groups throughout the course playing matches/competitions separate from each other. Other days all of the 'regular guys' are playing against everyone in Group X that is playing that day. Other days there are only 2 of the regular guys out on the course (cold weather).

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

> > >

> > > Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

> > >

> >

> > I just don’t follow. Are we talking 4 guys or 30 ? ( or whatever large number ). If so surely you don’t think that all of those guys want to play flag in ? And if not how isn’t it making someone else play that way ?

> >

> > Are you trying to say that you are attracting more players with that rule?

>

> X = All players who have had their email added to the 'regular guys' list

> Y = A subset of X which is the number of players that had discussed wanting to play a round that way

> Z = Player that does not want to play flag in

> C1 = Commish (person sending out a group email to all of the players in X)

>

> Does anyone in Y think that everyone wants to play flag in? Probably not but this is why C1 sends an email to group X to see who **IS** interested in playing that way. How isn't this forcing someone to play that way? Player Z of group X does not have to agree to play with the subset group Y that day. Player Z is free to become C2 (Commish #2 for that day) and send an email to all of group X forming a different get together for the same day and relative time if they wish.

>

> Is it attracting more players? Probably more than just those already in group Y because not everyone in group X was part of the initial discussion. Not sure how groups on your planet communicate but ours use email and texts to invite all, most, some or an even a smaller sub-group to play on any given day. There are likely those that do want to play that way and some that don't. We don't all have to hold hands and all play together every single round. There are 200+ days per year where a player from group X can play with a handful up to most of the 'regular guys'. Some days there can be 4+ different 'regular guys' groups throughout the course playing matches/competitions separate from each other. Other days all of the 'regular guys' are playing against everyone in Group X that is playing that day. Other days there are only 2 of the regular guys out on the course (cold weather).

 

And I suppose that’s “you do you “ as I said .

 

If this is a hypothetical one outing. But I’ve seen these splits before. The “ roll it in the fairway “ or the “ hand on ball all over “ guys breaking from the 1-2 guys who want to play by the rules. Just hard for me to believe that isn’t what you’re describing. A takeover of sorts.

 

On second thought. I’d probably remain quiet and see how this played out. Maybe decide mid round to play by the rules and pull the pin.

 

Ugh. This is an irritating concept. On one hand I’m sure you are a good guy to play with. And I know I’m very accommodating and polite in person and in this game. But passive aggressive moves are a real pet peeve of mine. And I’m prone to defiant display when confronted by that type thing.

[duffer987]

I will say this - the rule change has definitely and unfortunately added another variable to playing golf that can make it less enjoyable, when you're a twosome or single joining others to make a foursome.

It's now a palpable sense of relief when you don't have to faff about with the flag stick.

 

Played with a couple great guys (regardless of their pin preferences) on Sunday and we were all of the - in from distance, out closer, or just always out - same pin management mindset and it made everything so much easier.

My Saturday round - on the greens was simply annoying with the ins/outs all over the place. It started with 1 guy pronouncing on the first green that he's left it in all year and likes it that way, another guy wanted it out all the time, and two of us were in far out close.

[Shilgy]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Vindog said:

> >

> >

> > I think that not being able to clean your ball is contrary to what the view of green play should be. In the general area, play is mainly through the air, or at least, not expected to be solely along the ground. On the green, the play is a rolling shot, so we are allowed to repair marks and clean the ball so that we can play the required shot.

> >

> > So I'm not really surprised that this suggestion didn't fly. But there's no hurt in trying.

> >

> >

>

> Up to about 1960, you weren't allowed to lift your ball on the putting green unless requested, so obviously you couldn't clean it. You couldn't repair ball marks. Since that time, underground irrigation systems have become prevalent, agronomy has improved, and maintenance has improved, so now we have expectations of a perfect roll on a perfect surface. The rules changes, marking, cleaning, repair of damage, all are a reflection of the changing attitudes of the putting green as a "sacred and perfect" place. At least one person disagreed with the first changes way back in 1960.

> http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

> I don't see them reversing those rules changes.

 

Thankfully he was incorrect about at least one thing 59 years ago. He was concerned it was just a "small step" to go from fixing pitch marks to being granted relief from divots.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Augster said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

>

> > I make an equal suggestion to yours. Once you get to your ball you have 10 seconds time to hit it. This will speed up the game, don't you think?

>

> Not equal. Not close. Complete non sequitur.

>

 

Mi accorgo. Both are infruttuosi, or in the very least frivoli. Ex mea sententia.

[jholz]

So far, I have seen little difference in the pace or quality of play under the new rules. No arguments on the green. No trouble when someone wants it out and another wants it in. We just deal with it.

 

But then again, most of the weekend hacks I get paired with couldn't care less about completing their rounds under the ROG. So, I don't see it really changing much in terms of how my average round is played or how long it takes.

 

Ultimately, I think the new flagstick rule is just bad legislation - mainly because they are trying to tackle a problem (slow play) that has already proven to be rules resistant.

 

Every course I play has a rule concerning pace. None of them enforce it. Every major professional tour has a rule against slow play, yet the penalties have little teeth and are also rarely enforced. The USGA and R&A may claim to be concerned about pace of play, but their actions tell a different tale. Same thing with accessibility.

 

Slow play is a cultural problem, and as such, cannot be legislated away.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > Lol. Again. If all 4 of you want the pin in. Why the need to state it as a group rule ? That’s just crazy talk.

> > > >

> > > > Umm because there are more than 4 players in the 'regular guys' group and the idea of the email is to get other players involved who had already expressed interest in playing a round that way. Or are you referencing just a single 4-some agreeing? Then the idea would be to establish who can collect on any money bet... which is irrelevant, right?

> > > >

> > >

> > > I just don’t follow. Are we talking 4 guys or 30 ? ( or whatever large number ). If so surely you don’t think that all of those guys want to play flag in ? And if not how isn’t it making someone else play that way ?

> > >

> > > Are you trying to say that you are attracting more players with that rule?

> >

> > X = All players who have had their email added to the 'regular guys' list

> > Y = A subset of X which is the number of players that had discussed wanting to play a round that way

> > Z = Player that does not want to play flag in

> > C1 = Commish (person sending out a group email to all of the players in X)

> >

> > Does anyone in Y think that everyone wants to play flag in? Probably not but this is why C1 sends an email to group X to see who **IS** interested in playing that way. How isn't this forcing someone to play that way? Player Z of group X does not have to agree to play with the subset group Y that day. Player Z is free to become C2 (Commish #2 for that day) and send an email to all of group X forming a different get together for the same day and relative time if they wish.

> >

> > Is it attracting more players? Probably more than just those already in group Y because not everyone in group X was part of the initial discussion. Not sure how groups on your planet communicate but ours use email and texts to invite all, most, some or an even a smaller sub-group to play on any given day. There are likely those that do want to play that way and some that don't. We don't all have to hold hands and all play together every single round. There are 200+ days per year where a player from group X can play with a handful up to most of the 'regular guys'. Some days there can be 4+ different 'regular guys' groups throughout the course playing matches/competitions separate from each other. Other days all of the 'regular guys' are playing against everyone in Group X that is playing that day. Other days there are only 2 of the regular guys out on the course (cold weather).

>

> And I suppose that’s “you do you “ as I said .

>

> If this is a hypothetical one outing. But I’ve seen these splits before. The “ roll it in the fairway “ or the “ hand on ball all over “ guys breaking from the 1-2 guys who want to play by the rules. Just hard for me to believe that isn’t what you’re describing. A takeover of sorts.

>

> On second thought. I’d probably remain quiet and see how this played out. Maybe decide mid round to play by the rules and pull the pin.

>

> Ugh. This is an irritating concept. On one hand I’m sure you are a good guy to play with. And I know I’m very accommodating and polite in person and in this game. But passive aggressive moves are a real pet peeve of mine. And I’m prone to defiant display when confronted by that type thing.

 

Look, do yourself and me a favor. Go back an re-read post 224 - https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/18874160#Comment_18874160 and then the post (223) right before it. Stop taking the email/letter from the 'Commish' as exactly how the group would be gathered. It is just a tongue in cheek response to post 223 by @dpb5031 which is more in response to Sawgrass' previous responses than @dpb5031's questions.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @jholz said:

> So far, I have seen little difference in the pace or quality of play under the new rules. No arguments on the green. No trouble when someone wants it out and another wants it in. We just deal with it.

>

> But then again, most of the weekend hacks I get paired with couldn't care less about completing their rounds under the ROG. So, I don't see it really changing much in terms of how my average round is played or how long it takes.

>

> Ultimately, I think the new flagstick rule is just bad legislation - mainly because they are trying to tackle a problem (slow play) that has already proven to be rules resistant.

>

> Every course I play has a rule concerning pace. None of them enforce it. Every major professional tour has a rule against slow play, yet the penalties have little teeth and are also rarely enforced. The USGA and R&A may claim to be concerned about pace of play, but their actions tell a different tale. Same thing with accessibility.

>

> Slow play is a cultural problem, and as such, cannot be legislated away.

>

>

 

You could if you wanted to get drastic:

Proposed Rule: “A round of golf shall last than no longer than four hours from the play of the first ball to the holing of the final putt. If the round is not complete when time expires, all players in the group will incur a penalty stroke, and will be penalized 1 stroke for each 5 additional minutes that elapses beyond this limit. If more than 30 minutes elapses beyond the time limit, the group is disqualified.”

 

Like that rule is brutal and unfair in many ways, but you could legislate something.

[sui generis]

> @jholz said:

> So far, I have seen little difference in the pace or quality of play under the new rules. No arguments on the green. No trouble when someone wants it out and another wants it in. We just deal with it.

>

> But then again, most of the weekend hacks I get paired with couldn't care less about completing their rounds under the ROG. So, I don't see it really changing much in terms of how my average round is played or how long it takes.

>

> Ultimately, I think the new flagstick rule is just bad legislation - mainly because they are trying to tackle a problem (slow play) that has already proven to be rules resistant.

>

> Every course I play has a rule concerning pace. None of them enforce it. Every major professional tour has a rule against slow play, yet the penalties have little teeth and are also rarely enforced. The USGA and R&A may claim to be concerned about pace of play, but their actions tell a different tale. Same thing with accessibility.

>

> Slow play is a cultural problem, and as such, cannot be legislated away.

>

>

 

Rent golf carts by the minute. No cart keys required, just insert a credit card. Certainly some mayhem would ensue, but it might be a worthwhile experiment somewhere.

[davep043]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > >

> > >

> > > I think that not being able to clean your ball is contrary to what the view of green play should be. In the general area, play is mainly through the air, or at least, not expected to be solely along the ground. On the green, the play is a rolling shot, so we are allowed to repair marks and clean the ball so that we can play the required shot.

> > >

> > > So I'm not really surprised that this suggestion didn't fly. But there's no hurt in trying.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Up to about 1960, you weren't allowed to lift your ball on the putting green unless requested, so obviously you couldn't clean it. You couldn't repair ball marks. Since that time, underground irrigation systems have become prevalent, agronomy has improved, and maintenance has improved, so now we have expectations of a perfect roll on a perfect surface. The rules changes, marking, cleaning, repair of damage, all are a reflection of the changing attitudes of the putting green as a "sacred and perfect" place. At least one person disagreed with the first changes way back in 1960.

> > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

> > I don't see them reversing those rules changes.

>

> Thankfully he was incorrect about at least one thing 59 years ago. He was concerned it was just a "small step" to go from fixing pitch marks to being granted relief from divots.

 

But now we ARE essentially greenskeepers, authorized to repair any and all damage to a putting green.