Double Hit Rules Question - Chipping

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> If I have got this right all of you believe that everything Linda writes in her blog comes directly from USGA, is that it?

>

> Here's the blog: http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-accidentally-move-ball.html

>

> Where exactly in that part of the blog is it said that Linda's answers have been verified by USGA? That is all I want to know.

1) No

2) Do you believe she is wrong in this case?

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > Linda verifies many of her blogs with the USGA but doesn't always mention it.

> > >

> > > So... we always have to guess if she has verified the answer with the USGA... or....we need to ask her.

> > >

> > > If I wrote a blog such as Linda's I would ALWAYS tell if the answer I give has been verified by an authorized party, unless the answer is directly found from the Rules.

> > >

> > > Am I really the only one who thinks this way..???

> > >

> > >

> > If she never said one way other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

>

> Apparently my way of thinking that a person needs to show the credentials instead of others to guess whether there are any is a foreign type of thinking to the readers of this thread. No way around that.

>

> P.S. I did not understand the 'one way other if a post' thing. Sorry, I am not a native speaker, you need to use simple language.

She is significantly more right than wrong. Do you not trust any of her answers?

PS Sorry, words missing.

If she never said one way **or the** other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

Believe she was wrong, possibly wrong, possibly right,right or ...?

 

 

[Colin L]

Mr Bean

I was refereeing in a national tournament this past week and not one player who asked for help wanted to know if my ruling had been verified by the R&A.

[antip]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> If I have got this right all of you believe that everything Linda writes in her blog comes directly from USGA, is that it?

>

> Here's the blog: http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-accidentally-move-ball.html

>

> Where exactly in that part of the blog is it said that Linda's answers have been verified by USGA? That is all I want to know.

 

She stated it clearly here http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-revisited.html

That post was released two days after her initial discussion of the questions, but she was very upfront with what she was doing for her regular readers. The full answer she initially published was then updated once the USGA answer came in.

 

And my understanding is it is unusual for Linda to check answers with the USGA, her normal modus operandi is source answers from the published words and to identify the key rule where that can help a reader follow up.

 

I really don't understand this seeming war that you wish to wage against the Linda blog - her target is to help those golfers that are confused by the rules and have genuine questions, many of which are uncomplicated. Her target is not the serious rules student and her target audience are very appreciative of the service she provides. Some of us also find value in reading the blog because these are precisely the sorts of workouts you get if you are refereeing 'average' golfers in their rounds, without wearing out the shoe leather and getting rained on.

 

So I'm an unabashed fan and supporter of the blog. You are not a fan, fine, don't go there. I really don't see a lot of benefit in your carping on about it, this "I don't like the Linda blog mantra" is getting very old.

[antip]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > Linda verifies many of her blogs with the USGA but doesn't always mention it.

> >

> > So... we always have to guess if she has verified the answer with the USGA... or....we need to ask her.

> >

> > If I wrote a blog such as Linda's I would ALWAYS tell if the answer I give has been verified by an authorized party, unless the answer is directly found from the Rules.

> >

> > Am I really the only one who thinks this way..???

> >

> >

> Quite possibly. :smiley:

>

> Edit: Just to indicate this was meant humourously, I put in a smiley. It is tiny and located in a space somewhere east of the text it relates to.

 

Of course, with my screen oriented south (lhs) to north (rhs) that would be north for me. So I'm apparently not just Down Under but sideways about. Where exactly do I find our shrivelled and space-needy smiley friend? (Edit, disregard that last question related to keyboard layout, I've now found it in the **B** line - I'd never ventured beyond the italics before.)

[antip]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > Notwithstanding all that, IMO it would be a much odder construct if we allowed purposefully moving your ball in play in the teeing area at your whim, but penalized accidental movement. I don’t see it as essential to address this in 9.4, but no doubt it would make some people more comfortable.

> >

> > On your first sentence, that is what we do anywhere else on the course (except putting green) unless you are proceeding under a rule.

> >

> > On your second sentence, my view differs because 9.4b purports to tell us when there is no penalty for moving a ball at rest. Currently, this 6.2b(6) circumstance is not included with any words that can only apply to accidental movement under 6.2b(6), so IMO this is not about what makes some people more comfortable, it is about clarity in the Exceptions that the Rules allow. And reference is made to accidental movement 'no penalty' situations enabled through 7.4, 13.1d, 14.1, 14.2, 15.2, 8.1d, and 6.4, but not 6.2b, despite the fact that 6.2b represents some of the most radical rule changes that came in effect this year.

> >

> >

> 9.4b exception 1 says in part there’s no penalty for causing a ball to move when a rule:

> • Requires or allows the player to drop or place a ball again or to play a ball from a different place.

>

> And 6.2b(6) says you may move the ball without penalty and even drives you back to 9.4b X 1:

>

> • Lift or move the ball without penalty (see Rule 9.4b, Exception 1)

>

> So it’s all there, just not obvious.

>

>

 

In this view, you are on the side of the angels (RBs). But when this debate was intense some months back (and I suspect still), that view was in the minority. And this was clearly not the impression RBs wanted the new product to give. This extremely unlikely event (ball in play back on the teeing area AND carelessly and accidentally moved - something I have never experienced or seen in my lifetime) sucked up a lot of resources due to a lack of a clear and accessible message from the new words. So the ruling served an important role, even if that role was very different for you and I. And I remain of the view that the published words fail utterly to achieve their intent on this issue. I can't think of another example like that in the Official Guide, which is a fine product in my eyes. Still room for polishing, but so much more cohesive than the previous beast that was showing the nicks and scars of thousands of incursions.

[rogolf]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > All I am saying is that the only answers one can truly trust in come from the Ruling Bodies.

> > >

> > > ' In the current matter, it seems as if she was simply relating the questions put to the USGA and the answers given. If that were the case, the answers come from the USGA not herself.'

> > >

> > > This part I do not understand, too fancy language for me. From my part this started from antip's post where he said he has got the answer from USGA and then he referenced the questions and answers in Linda's blog.

> > >

> > > EDIT: Having read your words (which I quoted in this post) a dozen times and the referenced part of Linda's blog I find no reference to USGA anywhere but in antip's post.

> >

> > Linda submitted the question about accidentally moving a ball in play in the teeing area to the USGA and received the answer that antip has provided.

>

> Maybe so but that was nowhere to be seen in the post of Linda's blog. Or do you think I would have challenged Linda's answer had she wrote the answer was given by USGA? C'mon, rogolf!

>

>

 

So what? C'mon Mr. Bean, play fair - others can also be correct in their answers! It's fair to challenge her answers as you wish, but do it directly to her, don't criticize/doubt her answers on other websites, such as here; that could be classed as somewhat lame.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > If I have got this right all of you believe that everything Linda writes in her blog comes directly from USGA, is that it?

> >

> > Here's the blog: http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-accidentally-move-ball.html

> >

> > Where exactly in that part of the blog is it said that Linda's answers have been verified by USGA? That is all I want to know.

> 1) No

> 2) Do you believe she is wrong in this case?

 

I don't believe this... Any question I pose you, Newby, you return a question. Is it somehow against your values to answer a question instead of posing a new one?

 

Try this: Where exactly in that part of the blog is it said that Linda's answers have been verified by USGA?

[DavePelz4]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Newby said:

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

> > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > Linda verifies many of her blogs with the USGA but doesn't always mention it.

> > > >

> > > > So... we always have to guess if she has verified the answer with the USGA... or....we need to ask her.

> > > >

> > > > If I wrote a blog such as Linda's I would ALWAYS tell if the answer I give has been verified by an authorized party, unless the answer is directly found from the Rules.

> > > >

> > > > Am I really the only one who thinks this way..???

> > > >

> > > >

> > > If she never said one way other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

> >

> > Apparently my way of thinking that a person needs to show the credentials instead of others to guess whether there are any is a foreign type of thinking to the readers of this thread. No way around that.

> >

> > P.S. I did not understand the 'one way other if a post' thing. Sorry, I am not a native speaker, you need to use simple language.

> She is significantly more right than wrong. Do you not trust any of her answers?

> PS Sorry, words missing.

> If she never said one way **or the** other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

> Believe she was wrong, possibly wrong, possibly right,right or ...?

>

>

 

Has Mr. Bean ever provided any of his/her credentials? It seems rather duplicitous to call someone out for not providing credentials when one hasn't done the same.

[Mr. Bean]

> @rogolf said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @rogolf said:

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

> > > > All I am saying is that the only answers one can truly trust in come from the Ruling Bodies.

> > > >

> > > > ' In the current matter, it seems as if she was simply relating the questions put to the USGA and the answers given. If that were the case, the answers come from the USGA not herself.'

> > > >

> > > > This part I do not understand, too fancy language for me. From my part this started from antip's post where he said he has got the answer from USGA and then he referenced the questions and answers in Linda's blog.

> > > >

> > > > EDIT: Having read your words (which I quoted in this post) a dozen times and the referenced part of Linda's blog I find no reference to USGA anywhere but in antip's post.

> > >

> > > Linda submitted the question about accidentally moving a ball in play in the teeing area to the USGA and received the answer that antip has provided.

> >

> > Maybe so but that was nowhere to be seen in the post of Linda's blog. Or do you think I would have challenged Linda's answer had she wrote the answer was given by USGA? C'mon, rogolf!

> >

> >

>

> So what? C'mon Mr. Bean, play fair - others can also be correct in their answers! It's fair to challenge her answers as you wish, but do it directly to her, don't criticize/doubt her answers on other websites, such as here; that could be classed as somewhat lame.

 

I am trying very hard not to be impolite but I honestly need to ask if you read the posts thoroughly or do you just choose the parts you desire?

 

I am absolutely free to challenge any answer by anybody on any forum I choose. That is called liberty of speech. You may have heard the expression, I believe it is written in the Constitution. But you seem to dismiss my question where exactly in Linda's posts it is said that her answers have been verified by the USGA. This and ONLY this has been my question to you, antip and Newby but for some strange reason you all have ignored my question.

 

So, I ask again: where in the Linda's blog regarding the issue at hand and the post that was attached earlier in this thread was it said that her answer has been confirmed by USGA? Because that is what you & al have been claiming all along. And just for the record, I am not saying the answer is incorrect, I just want to know how I can tell it has been given / verified by USGA.

 

Awaiting for your answer.

[Mr. Bean]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Mr Bean

> I was refereeing in a national tournament this past week and not one player who asked for help wanted to know if my ruling had been verified by the R&A.

 

They must have been happy with the rulings. Or they know you.

[Mr. Bean]

> @antip said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > If I have got this right all of you believe that everything Linda writes in her blog comes directly from USGA, is that it?

> >

> > Here's the blog: http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-accidentally-move-ball.html

> >

> > Where exactly in that part of the blog is it said that Linda's answers have been verified by USGA? That is all I want to know.

>

> She stated it clearly here http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2019/02/ask-linda-1859-revisited.html

> That post was released two days after her initial discussion of the questions, but she was very upfront with what she was doing for her regular readers. The full answer she initially published was then updated once the USGA answer came in.

>

> And my understanding is it is unusual for Linda to check answers with the USGA, her normal modus operandi is source answers from the published words and to identify the key rule where that can help a reader follow up.

>

> I really don't understand this seeming war that you wish to wage against the Linda blog - her target is to help those golfers that are confused by the rules and have genuine questions, many of which are uncomplicated. Her target is not the serious rules student and her target audience are very appreciative of the service she provides. Some of us also find value in reading the blog because these are precisely the sorts of workouts you get if you are refereeing 'average' golfers in their rounds, without wearing out the shoe leather and getting rained on.

>

> So I'm an unabashed fan and supporter of the blog. You are not a fan, fine, don't go there. I really don't see a lot of benefit in your carping on about it, this "I don't like the Linda blog mantra" is getting very old.

 

I must be very poor in English language as I cannot recall having written anything the sort. All I wrote was that I do not find Linda as the most reliable source of Rules knowledge. After having written that I was attacked by some saying that all Linda's answers are verified by USGA, which now later has turned out to be false.

[DavePelz4]

Liberty of speech? Is that like when the German attacked Pearl Harbor?

 

I hope your knowledge of the rules is better than the constitution of the United States. You mean Freedom of Speech.

[Mr. Bean]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @Newby said:

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

> > > > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > > Linda verifies many of her blogs with the USGA but doesn't always mention it.

> > > > >

> > > > > So... we always have to guess if she has verified the answer with the USGA... or....we need to ask her.

> > > > >

> > > > > If I wrote a blog such as Linda's I would ALWAYS tell if the answer I give has been verified by an authorized party, unless the answer is directly found from the Rules.

> > > > >

> > > > > Am I really the only one who thinks this way..???

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > If she never said one way other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

> > >

> > > Apparently my way of thinking that a person needs to show the credentials instead of others to guess whether there are any is a foreign type of thinking to the readers of this thread. No way around that.

> > >

> > > P.S. I did not understand the 'one way other if a post' thing. Sorry, I am not a native speaker, you need to use simple language.

> > She is significantly more right than wrong. Do you not trust any of her answers?

> > PS Sorry, words missing.

> > If she never said one way **or the** other if a post was verified by the USGA what would you do?

> > Believe she was wrong, possibly wrong, possibly right,right or ...?

> >

> >

>

> Has Mr. Bean ever provided any of his/her credentials? It seems rather duplicitous to call someone out for not providing credentials when one hasn't done the same.

 

If I wrote a blog and presenting myself as an expert on the Rules you can bet your a$$ I would give my credentials. Or was that question of yours just a silly way of trying to be disputatious?

[rogolf]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

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

> > > > > All I am saying is that the only answers one can truly trust in come from the Ruling Bodies.

> > > > >

> > > > > ' In the current matter, it seems as if she was simply relating the questions put to the USGA and the answers given. If that were the case, the answers come from the USGA not herself.'

> > > > >

> > > > > This part I do not understand, too fancy language for me. From my part this started from antip's post where he said he has got the answer from USGA and then he referenced the questions and answers in Linda's blog.

> > > > >

> > > > > EDIT: Having read your words (which I quoted in this post) a dozen times and the referenced part of Linda's blog I find no reference to USGA anywhere but in antip's post.

> > > >

> > > > Linda submitted the question about accidentally moving a ball in play in the teeing area to the USGA and received the answer that antip has provided.

> > >

> > > Maybe so but that was nowhere to be seen in the post of Linda's blog. Or do you think I would have challenged Linda's answer had she wrote the answer was given by USGA? C'mon, rogolf!

> > >

> > >

> >

> > So what? C'mon Mr. Bean, play fair - others can also be correct in their answers! It's fair to challenge her answers as you wish, but do it directly to her, don't criticize/doubt her answers on other websites, such as here; that could be classed as somewhat lame.

>

> I am trying very hard not to be impolite but I honestly need to ask if you read the posts thoroughly or do you just choose the parts you desire?

>

> I am absolutely free to challenge any answer by anybody on any forum I choose. That is called liberty of speech. You may have heard the expression, I believe it is written in the Constitution. But you seem to dismiss my question where exactly in Linda's posts it is said that her answers have been verified by the USGA. This and ONLY this has been my question to you, antip and Newby but for some strange reason you all have ignored my question.

>

> So, I ask again: where in the Linda's blog regarding the issue at hand and the post that was attached earlier in this thread was it said that her answer has been confirmed by USGA? Because that is what you & al have been claiming all along. And just for the record, I am not saying the answer is incorrect, I just want to know how I can tell it has been given / verified by USGA.

>

> Awaiting for your answer.

 

You will have to show me where I've claimed that Linda's answer was verified by the USGA - I wouldn't do that. And, answer my question - why is it so important to you that an answer, even when correct, is verified by the R&A or USGA? What's the big deal?

Another site - generalarea.org - does that owner claim to have his answers "verified" by the USGA? Are the answers any less worthy if not verified?

Please get off your high horse.

[Mr. Bean]

> @rogolf said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @rogolf said:

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

> > > > > @rogolf said:

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

> > > > > > All I am saying is that the only answers one can truly trust in come from the Ruling Bodies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ' In the current matter, it seems as if she was simply relating the questions put to the USGA and the answers given. If that were the case, the answers come from the USGA not herself.'

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This part I do not understand, too fancy language for me. From my part this started from antip's post where he said he has got the answer from USGA and then he referenced the questions and answers in Linda's blog.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > EDIT: Having read your words (which I quoted in this post) a dozen times and the referenced part of Linda's blog I find no reference to USGA anywhere but in antip's post.

> > > > >

> > > > > Linda submitted the question about accidentally moving a ball in play in the teeing area to the USGA and received the answer that antip has provided.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe so but that was nowhere to be seen in the post of Linda's blog. Or do you think I would have challenged Linda's answer had she wrote the answer was given by USGA? C'mon, rogolf!

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > So what? C'mon Mr. Bean, play fair - others can also be correct in their answers! It's fair to challenge her answers as you wish, but do it directly to her, don't criticize/doubt her answers on other websites, such as here; that could be classed as somewhat lame.

> >

> > I am trying very hard not to be impolite but I honestly need to ask if you read the posts thoroughly or do you just choose the parts you desire?

> >

> > I am absolutely free to challenge any answer by anybody on any forum I choose. That is called liberty of speech. You may have heard the expression, I believe it is written in the Constitution. But you seem to dismiss my question where exactly in Linda's posts it is said that her answers have been verified by the USGA. This and ONLY this has been my question to you, antip and Newby but for some strange reason you all have ignored my question.

> >

> > So, I ask again: where in the Linda's blog regarding the issue at hand and the post that was attached earlier in this thread was it said that her answer has been confirmed by USGA? Because that is what you & al have been claiming all along. And just for the record, I am not saying the answer is incorrect, I just want to know how I can tell it has been given / verified by USGA.

> >

> > Awaiting for your answer.

>

> You will have to show me where I've claimed that Linda's answer was verified by the USGA - I wouldn't do that. And, answer my question - why is it so important to you that an answer, even when correct, is verified by the R&A or USGA? What's the big deal?

 

If the answer is not found in the Rules, how could I possibly know that the answer given is correct? How would you?

 

It seems to me that you are just twisting my words instead of trying to see what I am after. Accidental or deliberate..?

 

EDIT: This is from your post #49: 'Linda submitted the question about accidentally moving a ball in play in the teeing area to the USGA and received the answer that antip has provided.'

 

I believe you are saying here that the answer has been verified by USGA. Do you disagree?

 

EDIT2: You wrote: 'Another site - generalarea.org - does that owner claim to have his answers "verified" by the USGA? Are the answers any less worthy if not verified?'

 

Oh yes, they are! I hope you were not serious when asking that. Truly.

[Mr. Bean]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Liberty of speech? Is that like when the German attacked Pearl Harbor?

>

> I hope your knowledge of the rules is better than the constitution of the United States. You mean Freedom of Speech.

 

In how many languages can you express yourself, Dave? One? Or maybe even two? And you never make any mistakes in the other language..?

 

Good for you. I am sure your post gave a lot of value in this thread. You must be really proud of yourself.

[Newby]

Mr Bean

I don't believe that Linda or anyone else has said that all Linda's post have been verfied or endorsed by the USGA. Linda has sometimes stated that particular answers have been confirmed by the USGA.

Occasionally, if there is no clear rule, clarification or (previously, decision) available she would state that it was 'her opinion' or advice given by an acredited referee.

Incidentally, do you feel that Barry Rhodes should have stated that all his posts were verified by the R&A? Did you trust any or all of his answers?

[Vindog]

Good grief. Typical Bean. Snark up a thread then hide behind a "language barrier."

[sui generis]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > Liberty of speech? Is that like when the German attacked Pearl Harbor?

> >

> > I hope your knowledge of the rules is better than the constitution of the United States. You mean Freedom of Speech.

>

> In how many languages can you express yourself, Dave? One? Or maybe even two? And you never make any mistakes in the other language..?

>

> Good for you. I am sure your post gave a lot of value in this thread. You must be really proud of yourself.

 

Mr Bean, my friend, reclaim your dignity by retiring from this thread.

[ChaosTheory]

Back to the double hit question for a moment...

Is the double hit just one stroke? I know the penalty is gone. But I'm not sure if both hits are counted as strokes. The way I read it, it's only one stroke.

[sui generis]

> @Snowman9000 said:

> Back to the double hit question for a moment...

> Is the double hit just one stroke? I know the penalty is gone. But I'm not sure if both hits are counted as strokes. The way I read it, it's only one stroke.

 

R10.1 tells us "If the player’s club accidentally hits the ball more than once, there has been only one stroke and there is no penalty."

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=10