Anyone else have friends that don’t understand new OB rule?

[Mr. Bean]

I believe this is where our thinking differs vastly.

Around here we always (and that means always) follow the Local Rules set by the course management as that is the only sane starting point. If I play a practice round I do what I please but when I play a round to be registrated as a handicap round I (as all the other honest players around here) play by the Rules and that includes all the LR's set by the course management and nothing else. I can understand that you have such courses where there is no real management afa LR's are concerned but in such a case you (IMO) should not place your own LR's into force but just play the course as you find it.

Although people around there are only fooling themselves by using LR's when they so desire that kind of behavior totally undermines the ultimate principle of golf and I just cannot support that kind of system. And not to mention, that ruins the entire concept of having a worldwide handicap system.

Then again, why should I care how you maintain your handicaps over there...

[slocagolfer]

I wanted to delete what I wrote since it's covered in other posts but the overlords of this board won't let me. Or I just don't know how to do it. Apologies!

[antip]

My thinking precisely. My question was has anyone gotten, or become aware of any getting, official clarification of this 'in the fairway lost ball/MLR E-5 situation'? Given all the attention that MLR got, it seems a little surprising that RBs didn't cover this situation also.

[nsxguy]

What's really "too funny" is that you don't appear to know the difference between a "Rules" forum, you know, where rules are discussed, and a General Discussion Forum, where you can complain all you want about slow play.

[Hawkeye77]

I know the "each group is its own committee" gets discussed on here fairly often and I've seen and understood some situations where it has come up and they seem to be to kind of fill in some gaps, so to speak, at least in my memory.

But, in this circumstance would it be appropriate for a group to adopt the Local Rule re OB? Seems like there would be no reason for the course not to adopt this unless it intended the course to be played without it being an option? Just pondering.

 

[Sawgrass]

The USGA informed me that the ball reference point is where you presume the ball was lost, and the fairway reference point is at the edge of the nearest short grass, add 2 cls to each side to make your cone-shaped relief area.

[HatsForBats]

I think you are getting off on a tangent while I am discussing just the optional local rule for OB/Lost ball. For groups that decide to utilize the optional rule they are playing the course as they found it and playing within the WHS rules. I am more appreciative of possibly not having to watch a player hit shot 3, 5 etc. from the tee box or go back to a tee box after losing a ball or not realizing it went OB. Having the course define this for all play seems ludicrous to me and would be closer to insane behavior IMO.

From my perspective at worst players using this rule all the time, except for more formal competitions, put themselves at a slight disadvantage on their index. Nothing to fret about. Even when the local rule is in effect a player has the option to play a provisional and giving up the option to use the optional OB/Lost Ball rule on that particular shot. This is far superior to having the course define the rule for all play.

 

[Augster]

I guess I’m missing what you’re asking.

In the US, at public courses for sure, I’d bet 90% of play is just guys out playing. Some may have caps. Most will not. And because it’s a public course, the course will be made up of players, even with caps, from other clubs most of the time.

Usually the pro shop will have nothing to do with any of it. They will list any LR’s specific to the course on the scorecard and maybe holes where there is OB, penalty areas etc. And that’s about it.

In other words, there isn’t one “committee” that governs all play. At my public course, for example, our men’s club is about 100 guys and we have a committee that runs our events. During events, they govern our play. Outside of events, they really have no jurisdiction.

At the same course, there are leagues with their own committees which are not our men’s club committee. There is the ladies club. Their is the senior ladies club. There are 2 Monday evening leagues each with their own committee. There are at least 2 leagues Monday-Thursday evening each with their own committee.

NONE of these many committees has the authorization to go out and start moving and changing stakes on the course. That is only done by the superintendent. Committees can make suggestions to him, and the pro, and things can get changed that way.

Each of those committees can enact local rules for their own players. Remember, please, every local rule enacted will, possibly, lower a player’s posted score thereby possibly giving a player a lower cap than he should have. There’s really nothing wrong with that. AND if the player wants to keep a “real cap”, he can always ignore the local rules. BUT, if he ignores local rules that WOULD help him shoot a lower score, he probably shouldn’t post that score.

It’s a fine line between shooting a higher score because you don’t like the LRs in place and manipulating your cap.

[antip]

Thanks, can I put some specific examples on that for clarification please:

1) assume ball reference point is 25% of distance from left closely mown edge to right closely mown edge (on the equidistant arc from the pin) - so fairway reference point is on that arc at the closely mown edge LHS of fairway and the plus 2cl takes the line further into the rough while the other RA boundary line is 2cl to the right of the ball reference point?

2) assume ball reference point is precisely in the middle of the fairway, player can then choose either side as the fairway reference point and follow the model in 1)?

The USGA advice seems counter-intuitive as it does not follow the literal words on p469 applied to a lost ball in the fairway itself (per Hale's and my reading). But if that is what they've got, then that is what we've got.

[DFinch]

We don't use it and have stuck to the "original" OB rule, but with regard to the local rule it's a 2-stroke penalty and you can drop anywhere in arc from the point of crossing OB, no closer to the hole, up to 2-clubs into the fairway. Like others have said, it makes a cone with a concave face (for the no closer part) that connects the point of crossing with the 2-clubs in the fairway point going back. Golf's New Rules - Stroke and DistanceThink of it as the old stroke and distance but, if local rule is in effect, it's like hitting the provisional in the fairway (or wherever you choose to drop in the cone) and playing from there...so what used to be hit (1), penalty (2), hit provisional (3) now laying 4 is now hit (1), drop anywhere in the cone for a 2 stroke penalty (2, 3) now laying 4 at the location of drop.

The end of your description is confusing because it's unclear if there was a shot after he dropped from OB near the green, but at the drop he was:

Hit (1)

Penalty drop (2, 3)

Hit up fairway (4)

Hit OB again (5)

Penalty drop (6, 7)

Laying 8

If he hit his 8th shot up and then still had to chip, the chip was for 9. If the chip was from the drop, the chip was for an 8.

 

[Sawgrass]

Page 469 in my book shows only diagram 1, which does not speak to a ball lost in the fairway so I’m not sure what you mean by “literal words.” Irrespective of that, I don’t think the instruction I was given is inconsistent with any of the words on diagram 1. This conversation was a year ago, but I recall re-reading the LR text after my conversation and wondering why I bothered to ask. In retrospect it seemed (seems) obvious. For whatever reason though, I didn’t “get it” until I was led to it.

I did not extend the conversation to a ball presumed to be lost in the exact center of the fairway, but I feel comfortable with your comment (2) above. In fact, I can’t imagine anything valid diverging from that assumption.

[Halebopp]

@Sawgrass This conversation was a year ago, but I recall re-reading the LR text after my conversation and wondering why I bothered to ask. In retrospect it seemed (seems) obvious.I find that comment rather interesting because I would've been surprised and confused had they told me so. Luckily there's no need to worry about the whole MLR though. :)
(b). Fairway Reference Point: The point of fairway of the hole being played that is nearest to the ball reference point, but is not nearer the hole than the ball reference point.

[Mr. Bean]

The 'literal words' in that diagram say that the fairway reference point is the same as the ball reference point when the ball is lost in the fairway. Thus it is very much inconsistent with the answer given by USGA to you.

[antip]

Yes, this is my thoughts too. And to confirm, I am using the words in Diagram 1 under Fairway Reference Point with one adjustment - removal of the 'point B' that is specific to the lost off the fairway situation. So the literal words are 'The point of fairway of the hole being played that is nearest to the ball reference point, but is not nearer the hole than the ball reference point'. So when point A (ball reference point) is in the fairway, I don't see how this quote can be read as point B being anything other than the exact same spot as A or right next to A.

[Sean2]

Yes, I thought it was a local rule as well. If not, then it is treated as any OB shot normally would.

[Hawkeye77]

So, for example, a group of 2 or more playing a casual round in fact could, as its own committee, enact the current local rule re OB if the course has not posted it?

I always have to pause and get my head around the idea of that example of a committee - but rereading a couple of old threads got me back to at least understanding the reasoning.

 

[Mr. Bean]

I have sent a request to R&A today, let us see when I get an answer.

[Vindog]

If it's wet enough for the course to have "carts on paths only" we have enacted LCP on our own, but as far as I can remember that's the only one. I doubt I would be able to justify enacting e-5 on our own, just for a handicap round.

 

But that's just me.

[antip]

Thanks Mr B. One year on and away from the halcyon early days of the new world, this issue might have evolved. I have seen signs of that elsewhere.

[Mr. Bean]

In the EGA handicap system we did not have any such problems as we could choose when we want to play a handicap round (which is exactly the same in our current WHS, if I am not badly mistaken) but the USGA system rather forced you to register every round you played excl. sheer practice rounds. Is that the same in US version of WHS? I mean, LCP is the only LR one actually needs to evaluate on a daily basis, all the other Local Rules should be course specific and in force throughout the year.

[Sawgrass]

If one reads, "the point of fairway" as meaning "the point where fairway begins" it is resolved. And the "point B," which you removed since in your view it was solely for a ball lost off the fairway, can be seen as a redirection to the fairway edge since that's exactly where it is pictured.

I'm not saying the wording is by any means ideal. And it would certainly benefit from a "lost in fairway" example. But you asked if anyone had direct contact with a RB on the issue, and I raised my hand. But please, if there are doubts to the accuracy of what I had been told, people should contact their RB and see what comes up. I'd certainly be interested in hearing an alternate view. (That which I was told, irrespective of unclear language in a diagram which does not illustrate the situation, seems like the proper resolution of the situation to me.)

[davep043]

This is what the USGA version of the WHS says regarding use of Local Rules in Casual Play:

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes. The same situation applies where a player is in breach of a Model Local Rule that has been adopted by the Committee.

Examples of situations relating to Model Local Rules where a score might be acceptable for handicap purposes include:

A player has proceeded under the alternative option to the stroke and distance relief procedure, despite this Model Local Rule not being in effect, or

The player has used a distance-measuring device despite the Model Local Rule prohibiting their use being in effect.The final determination is at the discretion of the Committee, based on the circumstances."

 

[Mr. Bean]

The Committee being what? I have understood that the problem on muni courses is that there IS no Committee. So who decides? USGA? Needs enormous resources...

 

'The player has used a distance-measuring device despite the Model Local Rule prohibiting their use being in effect.'

This is very interesting. A breach of a Local Rule is by no means a hindrance to accept a score for handicap purposes but does that mean the breach is overlooked and the player gets no penalty added to his score? Sounds bizarre to me.

[Newby]

I seem to remember that Sawgrass had a response from the USGA some time ago, to the effect that the 'group of players' were their own committee.

The USGA manual has this:2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

A round must be played by the Rules of Golf to be acceptable for handicap purposes, subject to the following:

(i) Organized Competitions. In a situation where a player is disqualified from a competition for a breach of the Rules of Golf, but no significant scoring

advantage has been gained, the score should remain acceptable for handicap purposes.

If a player is disqualified from a competition for any other breach of the Rules of Golf, the score is not acceptable for handicap purposes.

The final determination is at the discretion of the Committee, based on the circumstances.

Further, CONGU currently says:

To accept a Disqualified Score as a ‘correct score’ the Committee must verify the score in such manner as it shall deem appropriate. All penalty strokes must be included in the score for handicap purposes.

They list 'acceptable' and unacceptable' breaches.

[Mr. Bean]

We are not talking about organized competitions but casual rounds.

And yes, in USGA area a group of players may form their own committee, which is the subject of this discussion. The issue is how to handle the situation where players are playing their handicap rounds under different Rules. It seems to me that can only happen in the USGA area and nowhere else.

[DaveLeeNC]

The most common 'inconsistency' that I see is the use of LCP both across rounds of golf on a given day on a given course and across different courses where basically the same conditions yield different answers for what are basically the same conditions.

Here in the US it is certainly typical for a given course to make no decision about LCP on a sloppy/wet day or publish a decision on when to transition from 'winter rules' to playing it down. Each group makes its own decisions, although often there are 'customs' that tend to be applied consistently across a single club. For example at our club folks tend to play winter rules when our MGA is playing winter rules. But the WGA makes it own decision which may or may not be the same.

How is this handled outside the US?

dave

 

[Mr. Bean]

As I already pointed out in EGA system there has been no need to post a score but it has been based on will to do that. Thus there has been no need to people to use their own Local Rules. Afa I have understood the same principle will be maintained also in the WHS but as that will not be a uniform system there will be various practices around Europe.

In a nutshell: at least in the Northern part of Europe it is not customary to post scores played under LR's not put into force by the course management.

[DaveLeeNC]

That is a narrower view than what I intended to ask.

First even in the US if there were actually an authority in place outside a group who was actively making relevant LCP decisions, those would generally be followed. So what happens in Europe for casual play? How are LCP decisions made in iffy conditions? Is there always somebody actually making a daily decision about LCP vs daily conditions and making that decision known? How about in the rest of the world?

And surely even in Europe it would be possible for two differing groups that are more serious than 'just a bunch of guys playing' (each with their own committee) to come to different conclusions regarding play on a given course on a given day. Or do 'real committees in Europe' always defer to this larger authority (that often does not exist in the US).

And of course this question is mostly aimed at areas outside the US and Europe.

dave

 

[Hawkeye77]

Yep, this is as far as we've ever gone except for occasional GUR because the course is simply to lazy to get out and mark it most of the time and the only with pretty obvious stuff, like big holes where tile repair is started but never finished, lol.

[Mr. Bean]

'And surely even in Europe it would be possible for two differing groups that are more serious than 'just a bunch of guys playing' (each with their own committee) to come to different conclusions regarding play on a given course on a given day. Or do 'real committees in Europe' always defer to this larger authority (that often does not exist in the US).'

I can only speak from my own experience and hardly for the entire Europe but at least in those countries where I have played nobody makes their own Local Rules when it comes to handicap rounds. Casual rounds with no posting is a different world but that is not the issue here.

I believe we take the Rules of Golf and the spirit of the game more seriously than you guys on the other side of the pond.