I hate the "Leaving the flag in" rule

[bladehunter]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @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.

 

Those are the posts that started this all. lol.

 

We can just agree to disagree.

[Shilgy]

> @davep043 said:

> > @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.

 

And that's not a bad thing. It's usually the players that don't fix pitch marks that b***h most about the condition of the greens.

[Mr. Bean]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @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.

 

A PoP system pretty much what you described is in use in some countries (in competitions, of course) and they claim it works well. Nothing unfair with the concept, the group is responsible for their position within the field and they must use whatever means to keep up with the schedule, including running.

 

For recreational golf that would have absolutely no effect as the vast majority of golfers just play and do not care about the score and would simply ignore penalties given for slow play by some paper on the note board. Only thing that really helps is enforcing the PoP by removing slow groups from the course. That has happened on many courses and I would certainly like to see that happen much more.

[Lodestone]

I like the new flagstick rule, and I haven't run into anyone on the course who doesn't like it. I don't always leave the stick in. There seems to be a natural tendency for the first guy to hole out, to play "pin-boy" and take care of the flag according to the wishes of each player. Not a big deal at all.

What did take some adjusting was being disciplined about where I leave all of my chipping clubs I may have carried onto the green, so I see them as I walk off the green. I was always trained to lay them on the flagstick.

 

 

[Vindog]

> @Lodestone said:

> I like the new flagstick rule, and I haven't run into anyone on the course who doesn't like it. I don't always leave the stick in. There seems to be a natural tendency for the first guy to hole out, to play "pin-boy" and take care of the flag according to the wishes of each player. Not a big deal at all.

> What did take some adjusting was being disciplined about where I leave all of my chipping clubs I may have carried onto the green, so I see them as I walk off the green. I was always trained to lay them on the flagstick.

>

>

 

I have, out of necessity, gone to putting them on the fringe directly in line to where I will walk off the green to my bag/cart/.

 

So many lost wedges...

[antip]

> @Vindog said:

> > @Lodestone said:

> > I like the new flagstick rule, and I haven't run into anyone on the course who doesn't like it. I don't always leave the stick in. There seems to be a natural tendency for the first guy to hole out, to play "pin-boy" and take care of the flag according to the wishes of each player. Not a big deal at all.

> > What did take some adjusting was being disciplined about where I leave all of my chipping clubs I may have carried onto the green, so I see them as I walk off the green. I was always trained to lay them on the flagstick.

> >

> >

>

> I have, out of necessity, gone to putting them on the fringe directly in line to where I will walk off the green to my bag/cart/.

>

> So many lost wedges...

 

That would just have me trampling the club en route to the bag thinking "what idiot would leave that there?"

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @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.

>

> A PoP system pretty much what you described is in use in some countries (in competitions, of course) and they claim it works well. Nothing unfair with the concept, the group is responsible for their position within the field and they must use whatever means to keep up with the schedule, including running.

>

> For recreational golf that would have absolutely no effect as the vast majority of golfers just play and do not care about the score and would simply ignore penalties given for slow play by some paper on the note board. Only thing that really helps is enforcing the PoP by removing slow groups from the course. That has happened on many courses and I would certainly like to see that happen much more.

 

 

From my experiences in Finland anyway, pace of play here is a non-issue. I’ve yet to have a round here longer than 4:30, and usually its about 4:00 flat. Same with the UK. It seems only the US has embraced the 5 hour round, and forcing groups along is great, but runs into the “I paid to be here” types.

 

[jholz]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @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.

 

You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

 

As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

 

What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

[jholz]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @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.

>

> A PoP system pretty much what you described is in use in some countries (in competitions, of course) and they claim it works well. Nothing unfair with the concept, the group is responsible for their position within the field and they must use whatever means to keep up with the schedule, including running.

>

> For recreational golf that would have absolutely no effect as the vast majority of golfers just play and do not care about the score and would simply ignore penalties given for slow play by some paper on the note board. Only thing that really helps is enforcing the PoP by removing slow groups from the course. That has happened on many courses and I would certainly like to see that happen much more.

 

You are ultimately right. The only thing that will solve slow play is to enforce the rules that are already in place. I would love to see local courses throwing people off the property. I would love to see slow play on the Tours address with DQ's or penalty strokes.

 

But you know what, neither golf course operators or the various tours have any incentive to do this. Until we change that, there is no rule that is going to address the issue.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @jholz said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @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.

>

> You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

>

> As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

>

> What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

 

Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

 

Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

 

I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

 

 

[jholz]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @jholz said:

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

> > > > @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.

> >

> > You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

> >

> > As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

> >

> > What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

>

> Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

>

> Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

>

> I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

>

>

 

You are missing my point. I completely concede that if your rule was enforced, it might have an impact. That isn't the issue.

 

The issue is the fact that the rule itself is unenforceable in the current climate of U.S. golf.

 

No U.S. golf course owner (outside of very exclusive clubs, perhaps) is in a position to drive away business. Therefore, any rule that is deemed to potentially drive away business becomes unenforceable. Golf course owners simply won't do it.

 

There is no incentive for the courses (or the major tours) to enforce any of the rules they have in place. Making up a new rule doesn't change this.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @jholz said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > @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.

> > >

> > > You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

> > >

> > > As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

> > >

> > > What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

> >

> > Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

> >

> > Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

> >

> > I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

> >

> >

>

> You are missing my point. I completely concede that if your rule was enforced, it might have an impact. That isn't the issue.

>

> The issue is the fact that the rule itself is unenforceable in the current climate of U.S. golf.

>

> No U.S. golf course owner (outside of very exclusive clubs, perhaps) is in a position to drive away business. Therefore, any rule that is deemed to potentially drive away business becomes unenforceable. Golf course owners simply won't do it.

>

> There is no incentive for the courses (or the major tours) to enforce any of the rules they have in place. Making up a new rule doesn't change this.

 

Oh sorry, next time I’ll read a little more closely! I’m in total agreement with you about the state of pay-to-play golf. I meant for high-level competition play. Unless you could somehow change to a pay by time format I don’t see players voluntarily speeding up, and in all my years playing golf, no group has ever thought _they_ were the problem, it’s always someone else. Throwing paying customers off your property is a recipe for disaster.

 

[jholz]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @jholz said:

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

> > > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > > @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.

> > > >

> > > > You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

> > > >

> > > > As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

> > > >

> > > > What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

> > >

> > > Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

> > >

> > > Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

> > >

> > > I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You are missing my point. I completely concede that if your rule was enforced, it might have an impact. That isn't the issue.

> >

> > The issue is the fact that the rule itself is unenforceable in the current climate of U.S. golf.

> >

> > No U.S. golf course owner (outside of very exclusive clubs, perhaps) is in a position to drive away business. Therefore, any rule that is deemed to potentially drive away business becomes unenforceable. Golf course owners simply won't do it.

> >

> > There is no incentive for the courses (or the major tours) to enforce any of the rules they have in place. Making up a new rule doesn't change this.

>

> Oh sorry, next time I’ll read a little more closely! I’m in total agreement with you about the state of pay-to-play golf. I meant for high-level competition play. Unless you could somehow change to a pay by time format I don’t see players voluntarily speeding up, and in all my years playing golf, no group has ever thought _they_ were the problem, it’s always someone else. Throwing paying customers off your property is a recipe for disaster.

>

Now, if they would start enforcing something like your rule on the major tours - that is something that I think could change the culture. I would certainly be in support of that.

 

If you can show guys shooting good scores and winning tournaments without taking 15 minutes over every shot, then recreational players might begin thinking that they can do it too.

[dpb5031]

> @jholz said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > > > @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.

> > > > >

> > > > > You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

> > > > >

> > > > > What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

> > > >

> > > > Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

> > > >

> > > > I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > You are missing my point. I completely concede that if your rule was enforced, it might have an impact. That isn't the issue.

> > >

> > > The issue is the fact that the rule itself is unenforceable in the current climate of U.S. golf.

> > >

> > > No U.S. golf course owner (outside of very exclusive clubs, perhaps) is in a position to drive away business. Therefore, any rule that is deemed to potentially drive away business becomes unenforceable. Golf course owners simply won't do it.

> > >

> > > There is no incentive for the courses (or the major tours) to enforce any of the rules they have in place. Making up a new rule doesn't change this.

> >

> > Oh sorry, next time I’ll read a little more closely! I’m in total agreement with you about the state of pay-to-play golf. I meant for high-level competition play. Unless you could somehow change to a pay by time format I don’t see players voluntarily speeding up, and in all my years playing golf, no group has ever thought _they_ were the problem, it’s always someone else. Throwing paying customers off your property is a recipe for disaster.

> >

> Now, if they would start enforcing something like your rule on the major tours - that is something that I think could change the culture. I would certainly be in support of that.

>

> If you can show guys shooting good scores and winning tournaments without taking 15 minutes over every shot, then recreational players might begin thinking that they can do it too.

 

I think PGA TOUR slow play and the recreational player's slow play are the result of two separate issues. Many TOUR players take painstakingly long with their pre-shot routines, and take along time to make a decision as to what type of shot they're going to hit, and which club they'll use. Most recreational players are slow not because of how long they stand over the ball or take on their pre-shot routines, but because they're extremely inefficient in getting around the golf course and are not ready to hit precisely when it's their turn.

 

You see it all the time with two guys in a cart. The driver proceeds to his passengers ball, parks the cart, then sits there watching his buddy or screws around with his phone while the buddy goes through his routine and then hits. They then drive across to the other side of the fairway where the driver must now go through his entire routine of obtaining yardage, club selection, etc. Would save a ton of time if the driver would simply drop off his buddy then proceed to his own ball where he could get his yardage and choose his club at the same time. This way he'd actually be ready to hit while his buddy is still holding his follow-thru. It's not that hard...lol!

[Matt J]

You guys have covered a lot of ground since I last popped in here.

 

I always come back to the regional cultural variety of this great game when I read these posts. To imagine a place where pace is not an issue? Astounding. Perhaps it's because everyone is walking and no one has built anti-social PSR's and backs off putts two or three times in a friendly match?

 

A place where the new flagstick rule is universally popular? No where I've been yet. My regular playing partners seem to agree that they wish the rule stipulated that it was okay to leave the pin holed in lieu of a tend. That it should be mandatory to pull it within some arbitrary length such as one length of the flag stick, so that as previously mentioned I don't have to play caddie for 3 putts, pulling and replacing the stick. Yes, I do have something to do. Read the 3.5 foot putt that is making my stomach turn.

 

As far as the original conflict, can a group stipulate a condition of the wager, but still play a round in regulation if that includes waiving a "choice" of the pin in or out for the duration of the round? I would say ABSOLUTELY. I'm no official judge nor an attorney of the court, but I think I have a keen legal mind. I can't imagine that the USGA would find fault in a player willfully choosing to leave the pin in for the duration of their round. I also would be quite grateful for your group to very quickly illustrate what a group of hacks you must be to stipulate such a condition so I could respectfully decline your invite. Peace and Love fellow lovers of gawf.

[jholz]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @jholz said:

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

> > > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > > @jholz said:

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

> > > > > > > > @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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You can come up with harsher and harsher rules all you want, the difficulty comes with enforcing them. Legislation is not just about coming up with stiffer and stiffer penalties, it's about creating rules that are enforceable and that actually work.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you say, your proposed rule is both harsh and unfair. When those who are tasked with enforcing that rule recognize this, they are going to be less reliable in terms of enforcing that rule.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying "let's make murder **_more_** illegal. That will stop people from killing each other." We've tried that. It doesn't work.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, and no. My rule at the very least outlines a strict criterion and a strict consequence. Enforcement requires a stopwatch. If golf were played as an individual sport where pace of play were affected solely by the single player’s actions, the rule is not inherently unfair (beyond what the exact time limit is set to) such as certain shooting disciplines which require a competitor to take all shots in a certain timeframe. Of course, golf has never been played with a strict clock in mind, so it would introduce a very foreign element to the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course the reality is the pace of play is not completely controlled by the golfer, he has his fellow competitors both in his group and the other groups. The entire golf course can move no faster than the slowest player/group, so it is somewhat unfair to penalize a player or group so black and whitely. Which is what we have now; a very vague timing procedure that is rarely used, hasn’t stopped 5 hour rounds, and seems to only cause controversy when it is applied.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would not want to see my rule adopted, but it would get the point across at least.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You are missing my point. I completely concede that if your rule was enforced, it might have an impact. That isn't the issue.

> > > >

> > > > The issue is the fact that the rule itself is unenforceable in the current climate of U.S. golf.

> > > >

> > > > No U.S. golf course owner (outside of very exclusive clubs, perhaps) is in a position to drive away business. Therefore, any rule that is deemed to potentially drive away business becomes unenforceable. Golf course owners simply won't do it.

> > > >

> > > > There is no incentive for the courses (or the major tours) to enforce any of the rules they have in place. Making up a new rule doesn't change this.

> > >

> > > Oh sorry, next time I’ll read a little more closely! I’m in total agreement with you about the state of pay-to-play golf. I meant for high-level competition play. Unless you could somehow change to a pay by time format I don’t see players voluntarily speeding up, and in all my years playing golf, no group has ever thought _they_ were the problem, it’s always someone else. Throwing paying customers off your property is a recipe for disaster.

> > >

> > Now, if they would start enforcing something like your rule on the major tours - that is something that I think could change the culture. I would certainly be in support of that.

> >

> > If you can show guys shooting good scores and winning tournaments without taking 15 minutes over every shot, then recreational players might begin thinking that they can do it too.

>

> I think PGA TOUR slow play and the recreational player's slow play are the result of two separate issues. Many TOUR players take painstakingly long with their pre-shot routines, and take along time to make a decision as to what type of shot they're going to hit, and which club they'll use. Most recreational players are slow not because of how long they stand over the ball or take on their pre-shot routines, but because they're extremely inefficient in getting around the golf course and are not ready to hit precisely when it's their turn.

>

> You see it all the time with two guys in a cart. The driver proceeds to his passengers ball, parks the cart, then sits there watching his buddy or screws around with his phone while the buddy goes through his routine and then hits. They then drive across to the other side of the fairway where the driver must now go through his entire routine of obtaining yardage, club selection, etc. Would save a ton of time if the driver would simply drop off his buddy then proceed to his own ball where he could get his yardage and choose his club at the same time. This way he'd actually be ready to hit while his buddy is still holding his follow-thru. It's not that hard...lol!

 

You make a reasonable point, to be sure. I agree that the slow play behaviors evidenced by pros and amateurs are different. Yet, I would argue that both could be impacted by a general change in culture that emphasized speedier play.

 

Since no one really seems to care these days, the amount and variety of slow play behavior is allowed to proliferate.

[nsxguy]

 

> @bladehunter said:

 

> Those are the posts that started this all. lol.

>

> We can just agree to disagree.

 

 

Well BH, I have never thought myself as particularly prescient,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and I STILL do not as this was a pretty easy call. LMAO

 

> @nsxguy said:

> 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.

 

[Matt J]

A lot of the regulars on here steer away from Pace of Play discussions. It was one of the main reasons I registered on the forums a few years ago. It is a problem, and there is a solution. But, as with many difficult social issues there is a cost and benefit.

 

If you are impatient, quit here... those first two sentences are the TL:DR version.

 

The long version:

 

I worked outside at a public "resort" course during summers away from university 20 years ago. This was at a pretty popular 36 hole facility inside Stone Mountain Park about 20 miles east of downtown Atlanta. Coincidentally, while teeing off in a huge local match play tournament (416 players on 27 holes) where I currently live in southern Oregon, the starter asked me my club affiliation. I had just dropped my membership so I told him, just announce me from my hometown, Stone Mountain, Georgia. The fella's eyes get real big and he says, "my son was the head pro at the Stone Mountain Park Golf Courses." Wow! He was my boss for my summer jobs in college 2,700 miles or so away from where we stand.

 

So, although I cannot remember his name, he was truly a revolutionary head pro. He determined that he was losing more business for having a reputation for "slow play" than he would lose if he simply enforced a very strict pace of play policy. So, two marshals per 18 holes were given clipboards with the cart numbers or "walkers" written down with the starting time and the PoP maximum for each hole at the tee box. The marsals were instructed to follow a very basic protocol. If there was very light traffic on the course, it was under "green light" conditions and no PoP was enforced but groups were instructed to be mindful of letting a smaller OR quicker group play through promptly. Then, under yellow conditions, a group that was falling behind was told how long and how many groups were behind them that they must let through or to quicken their pace. Then under red conditions every group was on a strict maximum PoP protocol. In that case, they were given one warning and instructed to be back in position by the time the second marshal encountered them. The marshals were very effective in communicating with each other via radio and staying pretty evenly paced out on the course driving against play. Each loop took about 30 to 40 minutes, so you encountered one of the 2 every two to three holes. If you weren't in position by the 2nd encounter you were instructed to pick up your ball and get in position.

 

Only about 1 in 20 players would verbally object to the protocol. The marshals were instructed to explain that the rate for golf was for one round within the maximum PoP guidelines and that they would be issued a full refund if they wanted to return to the clubhouse, but they would lose their playing privileges at the facility. Very, very few would choose this option and mostly due to the fact that they realized that they simply could not meet the maximum PoP. Those clients were instructed to come back at a more suitable "green light" time and take a rain check for that round. They typically learned a valuable lesson about booking tee times at a time they could enjoy their round simply letting faster groups play through.

 

About once or twice a season, and remember this place gets a TON of rounds, a group or a player in a group, would get very angry. Usually under the influence of alcohol, they would insist that the policy was "illegal" or "discriminatory" and refuse the marshal's authority to enforce it. These groups would be reported to the pro shop and the head pro himself or one of the assistants would drive out to handle the confrontation. These guys and gals all looked like a real Class A PGA pro in nice slacks and shoes, and carried themselves with confidence as I remember it. They would diffuse the situation by telling the patron that they had violated the course's policy by refusing the instruction of the marshal so now they had no choice but to ask them to return the cart and leave the facility. Most would tuck tail and do as they were asked. Once again very few years you would get a guy that would consider spending a night at county over such a trivial conflict and the staff was prepared for that as well. Pretty extreme, but the county sheriff's department had in fact escorted a guest off of the property, usually they would call a family member for a ride and not actually issue a citation in order to save them a DUI and criminal trespass offense. I never heard of any actually getting cuffed and stuffed other than one fella that had an outstanding warrant.

 

Believe it or not, I think this is the answer. You have to equip your staff with the tools to be effective. I do believe the course did some of the most rounds per day under that program that it ever did previously or afterwards. It turned out that they picked up a ton more local play as well as better more informed travelling players in a city where there isn't much affordable public golf and there was even less back then.

 

That's my novel.... if anyone reads to the end, thank you.

[nsxguy]

> @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.

>

>

 

Yeah, where i am pretty much everybody has gotten into the flow of the choice of flagstick. Then again, we've be at it for 4 months now. Takes a little getting used to.

 

And yes, slow play is a cultural sort of problem and those generally take a long time to work, if they ever do.

 

As for it speeding up play though it's not expected to do it all by itself. Looking for lost ball from 5 minutes to 3 and the new drop rules are meant to help as well. A little bit here and a little bit there tends to add up.

 

As for PoP, I wouldn't say every course doesn't enforce it. LOL

 

Long story short, a couple of weeks ago my group lost sight of the group ahead on the 5th hole and the group behind us called the Pro Shop. I'd seen them back there and urged our group to pick it up just a little (and we did). Bu they caught us again on 8 just as the ranger came out to us as we were leaving the 8th green and warned us to pick up the pace.

 

I happened heading towards the 9th tee already and wasn't with the rest of my group when we were warned and as the ranger played with us (somewhat larger group) quite a bit, I just thought he was asking them how we were doing and so I didn't ask.

 

Turns out he warned us to catch up to the group in front.

 

Finished 9 in 1:40

 

Warned again on 14th tee.

 

Finished 18 in 3:20 (not counting the 10 minutes waiting for the group behind to finish the 9th so we could let 'em through - though they decided not to)

 

Sheesh. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[jholz]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @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.

> >

> >

>

> Yeah, where i am pretty much everybody has gotten into the flow of the choice of flagstick. Then again, we've be at it for 4 months now. Takes a little getting used to.

>

> And yes, slow play is a cultural sort of problem and those generally take a long time to work, if they ever do.

>

> As for it speeding up play though it's not expected to do it all by itself. Looking for lost ball from 5 minutes to 3 and the new drop rules are meant to help as well. A little bit here and a little bit there tends to add up.

>

> As for PoP, I wouldn't say every course doesn't enforce it. LOL

>

> Long story short, a couple of weeks ago my group lost sight of the group ahead on the 5th hole and the group behind us called the Pro Shop. I'd seen them back there and urged our group to pick it up just a little (and we did). Bu they caught us again on 8 just as the ranger came out to us as we were leaving the 8th green and warned us to pick up the pace.

>

> I happened heading towards the 9th tee already and wasn't with the rest of my group when we were warned and as the ranger played with us (somewhat larger group) quite a bit, I just thought he was asking them how we were doing and so I didn't ask.

>

> Turns out he warned us to catch up to the group in front.

>

> Finished 9 in 1:40

>

> Warned again on 14th tee.

>

> Finished 18 in 3:20 (not counting the 10 minutes waiting for the group behind to finish the 9th so we could let 'em through - though they decided not to)

>

> Sheesh. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

>

 

Whether it's the new shorter time for searching for balls, or the new flagstick rules, I still don't see either of these having an immediate impact on pace of play. Given time, and continued effort through a variety of means, things might gradually begin to improve. But that's also, ultimately, a process of cultural change.

 

Additionally, it is always dangerous to argue in absolutes, as you point out. There is always an exception, and everyone can come up with an anecdote that runs counter to a general trend. That's why anecdotes don't count for much in statistical analysis or scientific inquiry.

 

So yes, you are right. There are some courses and clubs out there that can get away with strict enforcement of pace of play. Yet, as you point out, even that enforcement has problems. Your group finished early, yet was still being hassled to speed up play. That doesn't sound like good practice to me.

 

indeed, it is the kind of practice that leads people to believe that the rules are arbitrary, and are enforced as such. This is why people get so bent out of shape when they are challenged for playing slow.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> From my experiences in Finland anyway, pace of play here is a non-issue. I’ve yet to have a round here longer than 4:30, and usually its about 4:00 flat. Same with the UK. It seems only the US has embraced the 5 hour round, and forcing groups along is great, but runs into the “I paid to be here” types.

>

For many of us here in the USA pace of play is a non-issue. Many of us never see a five hour round. No, we have not embraced the five hour round.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @jholz said:>

> Now, if they would start enforcing something like your rule on the major tours - that is something that I think could change the culture. I would certainly be in support of that.

>

> If you can show guys shooting good scores and winning tournaments without taking 15 minutes over every shot, then recreational players might begin thinking that they can do it too.

 

I've been playing for decades and never felt like anybody I play with is slow due to watching the pros. I've also never seen anybody take 15 minutes over one shot, much less every shot.

[Augster]

I had another putt knocked away today by the pin. Would have gone in. 100%.

 

I think I’m done with pin-in on any putt I’m going to give some speed to. Namely uphill putts.

[jholz]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @jholz said:>

> > Now, if they would start enforcing something like your rule on the major tours - that is something that I think could change the culture. I would certainly be in support of that.

> >

> > If you can show guys shooting good scores and winning tournaments without taking 15 minutes over every shot, then recreational players might begin thinking that they can do it too.

>

> I've been playing for decades and never felt like anybody I play with is slow due to watching the pros. I've also never seen anybody take 15 minutes over one shot, much less every shot.

 

Well, there's that debate settled!

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Played my second round under the new flag rule and still LOVE IT. I was playing with new group of guys with no previous discussion about the pin and when we got to the green we'd just start putting. The fourth guy asked a couple times to have it pulled, but otherwise unless expressly requested, no one was touching the pin. By the 4th hole he didn't care.

[bladehunter]

> @"Matt J" said:

> A lot of the regulars on here steer away from Pace of Play discussions. It was one of the main reasons I registered on the forums a few years ago. It is a problem, and there is a solution. But, as with many difficult social issues there is a cost and benefit.

>

> If you are impatient, quit here... those first two sentences are the TL:DR version.

>

> The long version:

>

> I worked outside at a public "resort" course during summers away from university 20 years ago. This was at a pretty popular 36 hole facility inside Stone Mountain Park about 20 miles east of downtown Atlanta. Coincidentally, while teeing off in a huge local match play tournament (416 players on 27 holes) where I currently live in southern Oregon, the starter asked me my club affiliation. I had just dropped my membership so I told him, just announce me from my hometown, Stone Mountain, Georgia. The fella's eyes get real big and he says, "my son was the head pro at the Stone Mountain Park Golf Courses." Wow! He was my boss for my summer jobs in college 2,700 miles or so away from where we stand.

>

> So, although I cannot remember his name, he was truly a revolutionary head pro. He determined that he was losing more business for having a reputation for "slow play" than he would lose if he simply enforced a very strict pace of play policy. So, two marshals per 18 holes were given clipboards with the cart numbers or "walkers" written down with the starting time and the PoP maximum for each hole at the tee box. The marsals were instructed to follow a very basic protocol. If there was very light traffic on the course, it was under "green light" conditions and no PoP was enforced but groups were instructed to be mindful of letting a smaller OR quicker group play through promptly. Then, under yellow conditions, a group that was falling behind was told how long and how many groups were behind them that they must let through or to quicken their pace. Then under red conditions every group was on a strict maximum PoP protocol. In that case, they were given one warning and instructed to be back in position by the time the second marshal encountered them. The marshals were very effective in communicating with each other via radio and staying pretty evenly paced out on the course driving against play. Each loop took about 30 to 40 minutes, so you encountered one of the 2 every two to three holes. If you weren't in position by the 2nd encounter you were instructed to pick up your ball and get in position.

>

> Only about 1 in 20 players would verbally object to the protocol. The marshals were instructed to explain that the rate for golf was for one round within the maximum PoP guidelines and that they would be issued a full refund if they wanted to return to the clubhouse, but they would lose their playing privileges at the facility. Very, very few would choose this option and mostly due to the fact that they realized that they simply could not meet the maximum PoP. Those clients were instructed to come back at a more suitable "green light" time and take a rain check for that round. They typically learned a valuable lesson about booking tee times at a time they could enjoy their round simply letting faster groups play through.

>

> About once or twice a season, and remember this place gets a TON of rounds, a group or a player in a group, would get very angry. Usually under the influence of alcohol, they would insist that the policy was "illegal" or "discriminatory" and refuse the marshal's authority to enforce it. These groups would be reported to the pro shop and the head pro himself or one of the assistants would drive out to handle the confrontation. These guys and gals all looked like a real Class A PGA pro in nice slacks and shoes, and carried themselves with confidence as I remember it. They would diffuse the situation by telling the patron that they had violated the course's policy by refusing the instruction of the marshal so now they had no choice but to ask them to return the cart and leave the facility. Most would tuck tail and do as they were asked. Once again very few years you would get a guy that would consider spending a night at county over such a trivial conflict and the staff was prepared for that as well. Pretty extreme, but the county sheriff's department had in fact escorted a guest off of the property, usually they would call a family member for a ride and not actually issue a citation in order to save them a DUI and criminal trespass offense. I never heard of any actually getting cuffed and stuffed other than one fella that had an outstanding warrant.

>

> Believe it or not, I think this is the answer. You have to equip your staff with the tools to be effective. I do believe the course did some of the most rounds per day under that program that it ever did previously or afterwards. It turned out that they picked up a ton more local play as well as better more informed travelling players in a city where there isn't much affordable public golf and there was even less back then.

>

> That's my novel.... if anyone reads to the end, thank you.

 

I made it ! Alll the way ! Lol.

 

And I agree 100.%. Education in the end is the answer. Nothing worse on the course than running into that 4 some of beginners or drunks on Sunday afternoon when the course is packed. They are on pace for 6 hour round and you’ve turned a couple under par. My experience. May as well just pickup and go home. Cause your day is ruined. They do not know to let you though. They do not understand pace of play and they do not get that you aren’t taking 3 shots to get on from 150. So they don’t seem to think you’re possibly waiting on them from that far out.

[Mr. Bean]

> @"Matt J" said:

> A lot of the regulars on here steer away from Pace of Play discussions. It was one of the main reasons I registered on the forums a few years ago. It is a problem, and there is a solution. But, as with many difficult social issues there is a cost and benefit.

>

> If you are impatient, quit here... those first two sentences are the TL:DR version.

>

> The long version:

>

> I worked outside at a public "resort" course during summers away from university 20 years ago. This was at a pretty popular 36 hole facility inside Stone Mountain Park about 20 miles east of downtown Atlanta. Coincidentally, while teeing off in a huge local match play tournament (416 players on 27 holes) where I currently live in southern Oregon, the starter asked me my club affiliation. I had just dropped my membership so I told him, just announce me from my hometown, Stone Mountain, Georgia. The fella's eyes get real big and he says, "my son was the head pro at the Stone Mountain Park Golf Courses." Wow! He was my boss for my summer jobs in college 2,700 miles or so away from where we stand.

>

> So, although I cannot remember his name, he was truly a revolutionary head pro. He determined that he was losing more business for having a reputation for "slow play" than he would lose if he simply enforced a very strict pace of play policy. So, two marshals per 18 holes were given clipboards with the cart numbers or "walkers" written down with the starting time and the PoP maximum for each hole at the tee box. The marsals were instructed to follow a very basic protocol. If there was very light traffic on the course, it was under "green light" conditions and no PoP was enforced but groups were instructed to be mindful of letting a smaller OR quicker group play through promptly. Then, under yellow conditions, a group that was falling behind was told how long and how many groups were behind them that they must let through or to quicken their pace. Then under red conditions every group was on a strict maximum PoP protocol. In that case, they were given one warning and instructed to be back in position by the time the second marshal encountered them. The marshals were very effective in communicating with each other via radio and staying pretty evenly paced out on the course driving against play. Each loop took about 30 to 40 minutes, so you encountered one of the 2 every two to three holes. If you weren't in position by the 2nd encounter you were instructed to pick up your ball and get in position.

>

> Only about 1 in 20 players would verbally object to the protocol. The marshals were instructed to explain that the rate for golf was for one round within the maximum PoP guidelines and that they would be issued a full refund if they wanted to return to the clubhouse, but they would lose their playing privileges at the facility. Very, very few would choose this option and mostly due to the fact that they realized that they simply could not meet the maximum PoP. Those clients were instructed to come back at a more suitable "green light" time and take a rain check for that round. They typically learned a valuable lesson about booking tee times at a time they could enjoy their round simply letting faster groups play through.

>

> About once or twice a season, and remember this place gets a TON of rounds, a group or a player in a group, would get very angry. Usually under the influence of alcohol, they would insist that the policy was "illegal" or "discriminatory" and refuse the marshal's authority to enforce it. These groups would be reported to the pro shop and the head pro himself or one of the assistants would drive out to handle the confrontation. These guys and gals all looked like a real Class A PGA pro in nice slacks and shoes, and carried themselves with confidence as I remember it. They would diffuse the situation by telling the patron that they had violated the course's policy by refusing the instruction of the marshal so now they had no choice but to ask them to return the cart and leave the facility. Most would tuck tail and do as they were asked. Once again very few years you would get a guy that would consider spending a night at county over such a trivial conflict and the staff was prepared for that as well. Pretty extreme, but the county sheriff's department had in fact escorted a guest off of the property, usually they would call a family member for a ride and not actually issue a citation in order to save them a DUI and criminal trespass offense. I never heard of any actually getting cuffed and stuffed other than one fella that had an outstanding warrant.

>

> Believe it or not, I think this is the answer. You have to equip your staff with the tools to be effective. I do believe the course did some of the most rounds per day under that program that it ever did previously or afterwards. It turned out that they picked up a ton more local play as well as better more informed travelling players in a city where there isn't much affordable public golf and there was even less back then.

>

> That's my novel.... if anyone reads to the end, thank you.

 

Matt, I read your novel and that is exactly what I experienced already 25 years ago in Spain. One remark from the marshal to speed up, next remark was 'pick your ball up and walk through this hole', 3rd remark meant off the course. It only took two remarks even to the most bone-headed...

 

Now, someone in this thread wrote that throwing customers off the course would be the end of that golf course. Quite on the contrary! A golf course sells rounds of golf, not picnics. It is of everyone's interest to have a decent throughput, both the course AND the players.

[Matt J]

@"Mr. Bean" - glad someone doesn't think I'm crazy!

 

Out here on the west coast, everyone is so laid back that no one wants to "give anyone a hard time" - so we just stand around and play 5 and 5.5 hour rounds. Brilliant.

[jholz]

Matt J's described policy is exactly the one that is supposedly in place at the vast majority of courses where I have played throughout my life. When I was younger, the courses generally enforced these rules.

 

Nowadays, the courses still have the policy and the signs. They have signs in the clubhouse, at the starter's shack, in the carts, and at several prominent places on hole markers, etc. Everywhere. But it acts as a suggestion, not a rule - because none of these courses really enforce it anymore.

 

How much time, effort, and expense went into the enforcement of the policy at Stone Mtn.? How did they get lucky enough to find competent, effective people to enforce the policy, and how did they keep them? What happened when the particular pro left? Was the course able to continue that policy with the same effect?

 

Most courses I play, if they have a ranger at all, it tends to be a person who gets paid in free golf. I don't see a whole lot of motivation for them to go out and get into it with slow players. I see even less chance that they are going to possess the interpersonal/customer services skills to effectively deal with the potential fallout from some of those confrontations.

 

The average muni or public course just doen't have the balls or the resources to do it anymore.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @"Matt J" said:

> A lot of the regulars on here steer away from Pace of Play discussions. It was one of the main reasons I registered on the forums a few years ago. It is a problem, and there is a solution. But, as with many difficult social issues there is a cost and benefit.

>

> If you are impatient, quit here... those first two sentences are the TL:DR version.

>

> The long version:

>

> I worked outside at a public "resort" course during summers away from university 20 years ago. This was at a pretty popular 36 hole facility inside Stone Mountain Park about 20 miles east of downtown Atlanta. Coincidentally, while teeing off in a huge local match play tournament (416 players on 27 holes) where I currently live in southern Oregon, the starter asked me my club affiliation. I had just dropped my membership so I told him, just announce me from my hometown, Stone Mountain, Georgia. The fella's eyes get real big and he says, "my son was the head pro at the Stone Mountain Park Golf Courses." Wow! He was my boss for my summer jobs in college 2,700 miles or so away from where we stand.

>

> So, although I cannot remember his name, he was truly a revolutionary head pro. He determined that he was losing more business for having a reputation for "slow play" than he would lose if he simply enforced a very strict pace of play policy. So, two marshals per 18 holes were given clipboards with the cart numbers or "walkers" written down with the starting time and the PoP maximum for each hole at the tee box. The marsals were instructed to follow a very basic protocol. If there was very light traffic on the course, it was under "green light" conditions and no PoP was enforced but groups were instructed to be mindful of letting a smaller OR quicker group play through promptly. Then, under yellow conditions, a group that was falling behind was told how long and how many groups were behind them that they must let through or to quicken their pace. Then under red conditions every group was on a strict maximum PoP protocol. In that case, they were given one warning and instructed to be back in position by the time the second marshal encountered them. The marshals were very effective in communicating with each other via radio and staying pretty evenly paced out on the course driving against play. Each loop took about 30 to 40 minutes, so you encountered one of the 2 every two to three holes. If you weren't in position by the 2nd encounter you were instructed to pick up your ball and get in position.

>

> Only about 1 in 20 players would verbally object to the protocol. The marshals were instructed to explain that the rate for golf was for one round within the maximum PoP guidelines and that they would be issued a full refund if they wanted to return to the clubhouse, but they would lose their playing privileges at the facility. Very, very few would choose this option and mostly due to the fact that they realized that they simply could not meet the maximum PoP. Those clients were instructed to come back at a more suitable "green light" time and take a rain check for that round. They typically learned a valuable lesson about booking tee times at a time they could enjoy their round simply letting faster groups play through.

>

> About once or twice a season, and remember this place gets a TON of rounds, a group or a player in a group, would get very angry. Usually under the influence of alcohol, they would insist that the policy was "illegal" or "discriminatory" and refuse the marshal's authority to enforce it. These groups would be reported to the pro shop and the head pro himself or one of the assistants would drive out to handle the confrontation. These guys and gals all looked like a real Class A PGA pro in nice slacks and shoes, and carried themselves with confidence as I remember it. They would diffuse the situation by telling the patron that they had violated the course's policy by refusing the instruction of the marshal so now they had no choice but to ask them to return the cart and leave the facility. Most would tuck tail and do as they were asked. Once again very few years you would get a guy that would consider spending a night at county over such a trivial conflict and the staff was prepared for that as well. Pretty extreme, but the county sheriff's department had in fact escorted a guest off of the property, usually they would call a family member for a ride and not actually issue a citation in order to save them a DUI and criminal trespass offense. I never heard of any actually getting cuffed and stuffed other than one fella that had an outstanding warrant.

>

> Believe it or not, I think this is the answer. You have to equip your staff with the tools to be effective. I do believe the course did some of the most rounds per day under that program that it ever did previously or afterwards. It turned out that they picked up a ton more local play as well as better more informed travelling players in a city where there isn't much affordable public golf and there was even less back then.

>

> That's my novel.... if anyone reads to the end, thank you.

 

I got through your novel and agree. It's what I've said all along that education, setting expectations and then enforcement work. Those that are offended are far fewer than those whom appreciate the policy. While your clubs policy was the most comprehensive many places don't even do the basics. By basics I mean, upon check in the person in the pro shop sets the pace expectation and then the starter say's it again. Most places say nothing.