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

[DaveLeeNC]

Casual rounds IS THE issue here because we post casual rounds. It sounds like our casual rounds and your casual rounds are similar. The only difference is that our rules require posting and that is the fundamental source of the differences being discussed.

BTW, we don't "make up" local rules. Sometimes we decide when they are in effect because no one else is doing that.

dave

[Newby]

In CONGU land, my impression is that It is virtually unknown for groups to decide on use of local rules whether playing casually or otherwise. The 'authority' (ie club management, course management or sometimes delegated pro) will make the decision(s) and post the appropriate notice(s).

[DaveLeeNC]

Thanks - that is very different than the typical case in the US. I am assuming that this means that (for example) on a day of 2 inches of overnight rain, somebody (before play starts) will assess the condition of the course and if LCP is appropriate will post that in some obvious (or at least well known) place.

dave

[Mr. Bean]

'BTW, we don't "make up" local rules. Sometimes we decide when they are in effect because no one else is doing that.'

I KNEW you are going to pick that up!!! Sorry Dave, that was a teaser and I deliberately used those words But ultimately what is the difference? Making up new rules or using existing ones that are not in force, what really is the difference? The outcome in both cases is that people are playing by different Rules on the same course, on the same day, in same conditions just in different groups.

Afa casual rounds are concerned our casual rounds are just that, casual. It seems USGA decided that in US the WHS has to follow your tradition. What a pity, this was the ultimate opportunity to unify things. Will not happen, USGA just has to have it's own way. Well, it is just handicap and not anything important. At least the written Rules of Golf are the same.

[Mr. Bean]

Indeed that is the case, but even more important, people in CONGU land (and in EGA lands) are free to choose whether they post a result or not (to be clear, that decision has to be made before commencing the round). Thus if the conditions warrant for a LCP to be in place and the course management has not reacted people tend to play just for recreation instead of handicap. Freedom of choice, so to say.

[SNIPERBBB]

Well at least the calculations are unified. I dont know if all the bodies would ever agree as to what rounds can be posted and how they're played. As a personal opinion, the handicap system should only be used for course-wide competitions where everyone is playing under the same rules. Not for individual games. Especially sense the USGA frowns on gambling and prizes, why the heck would they care about individual games.

[Newby]

Exactly

[antip]

I have no issue with any of your observations and appreciate being reminded of the early inquiry you made - I had a vague recollection that someone here had taken the question upward and that was why I asked. My considered view (a year on, noting I'm someone uncontaminated by ever playing under this LR) is the only sensible way to apply this LR for a ball lost in the fairway is the way the dynamic duo from Finland and I have been raising it. Reading "point of fairway" to mean the fairway edge is nothing but sensible in the case of ball lost off fairway or OOB, but IMO nonsensical for a ball lost in fairway. So the $64 question now is whether RB's view has matured from that early reading. Mr B's query will guide us.

I am a strong believer that submitting intelligent questions will help to guide the rules in good directions.

[antip]

Ditto here. The culture is no player has the right to decide anything about LRs in competition play, that is exclusively the Committee and what is up on those boards is sacrosanct. Social play is a different issue, but there is no posting of scores there, even though it is theoretically possible IFF (that is, if and only if) a specific club has permitted it - and I have never come across a club that has.

[DaveLeeNC]

@Mr. Bean "Making up new rules or using existing ones that are not in force, what really is the difference? The outcome in both cases is that people are playing by different Rules on the same course, on the same day, in same conditions just in different groups."
Here is a difference. Early spring day, fairways are crappy, mud everywhere, and nobody made a LCP decision. The vast majority of US golfers (casual play) are going to play LCP. You, however, play it down costing you maybe 4 strokes as a guess and (assuming that you had a handicap here) would post that. There is a difference.
Leaving you out of the equation but using your suggestion, everybody that day posts a score that is roughly 4 strokes higher than would be their norm. There is another difference. From what I know of PCC it would probably not even kick in at that point (or maybe it would fix one stroke). While this might be equitable for those who played that day, it is not for the handicap population at large.
The right solution is that some authority should be making a rational decision for that day. Here in the US we often don't have that. That is unfortunate.
dave

[Augster]

The WHS and the USGA has trusted us to make our own decisions on LR’s in casual play. Because we are grown ups and the game is supposed to be fun.

Every single local rule enacted by each committee is going to, theoretically, lower scores. So there is no real harm.

[Mr. Bean]

That is not what I meant. I asked what would be the difference if people made their own rules vs. taking into use existing LRs. The outcome would still be that people were playing by different rules. But never mind, this is not important.

[Mr. Bean]

There is also the aspect of 'losing ground'. If you lose your ball in the middle of the fairway and are forced to drop at the edge of it you just might have an inferior line of play.

[Mr. Bean]

1) WHS has not trusted you with anything as we here using the 'same' WHS do not have that choice when we post our score. USGA has given you that option, not WHS.

2) Some high level amateur tours have a maximum handicap, i.e. in order to be able to register in your hcp must be low enough. Using your own LRs is an easy way to achieve that. Whether that is a real harm or not is up to each individual to ponder but IMO it is extremely questionable to lower the hcp with such tools.

[DaveLeeNC]

If your ball is believed to be lost in the fairway, then your ball reference point will be in the fairway and your drop options include that general area (all the way to some fairway edge).

dave

[Newby]

Not sure if I have understood you correctly re 2).

Some such amateur events that I am aware of will allow entry (if there are enough places) with a higher handicap than the 'nominal' max. The max is used for the competition prizes but actual handicap is used for handicap system purposes.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

It took BOTH the WHS and USGA to allow posting of casual rounds. They are equally "culpable".

In the US if you want a vanity cap for any reason (including meeting a max HCAP requirement) you don't do it with 'wrong' LR's. You play with a buddy (or a stranger) and just type a score that works for the situation into Ghin. You'd never make it as a vanity capper here in the US

dave

 

[Sawgrass]

The only time you'd have to drop near the edge of the fairway is if your ball was judged lost near the edge of the fairway, giving you the "inferior line" you earned.

[Mr. Bean]

Ok, thanks. I had misunderstood that.

[Mr. Bean]

We have such competition working both ways. Entry limit can be hcp xx,x and that can be a maximum and it can be a minimum. It is more customary to have that as maximum, e.g. hcp max 4,0 is allowed to enter a competition. Also many competitions have categories and the last category is handicap. The lower your cap the better chance you have to get in the comp.

[antip]

(all the way to some fairway edge).

That is consistent with Saw's received advice. I remain of the view that it is not consistent with the precise wording of Diagram 1 applied to a ball on fairway (rather than ball off fairway) situation. Anyway, now I'm only repeating myself so I'll shut up until Mr B brings us a fresh RB read, and then, if necessary, I'll just shut up.

[Mr. Bean]

An assistant director of the R&A confirmed to me the response Sawgrass has got from USGA. The fairway reference point is at the edge of the fairway when a ball is lost in the fairway. I thanked for the response and suggested the Rule in question should be clarified as the text as written does not support that interpretation.

[antip]

Thanks for the confirmation. I should have raised this earlier, but did your question cover confirming the direction the +2 CL lines would take? For example, the actual words in Diagram 1 (p469) re FRP in Column 2 (Size of Relief Area) say "and within two CL to the fairway side of that line", which means if ball is estimated lost in fairway left of centre of fairway then the +2CL line would be on the RHS of the line from FRP to hole (ie into the fairway). But before you get to that FRP section of the explanation you have already had to navigate the BRP section where the +2 CL line is to the "outside" of the line from BRP to hole. Yet logically, for a ball estimated to be lost on the LHS of the fairway, wouldn't "outside" seem to be towards the nearest rough - to the LHS? Which would have the two +2 CL lines moving towards and possibly past each other.

These are the complications that result when the interpretations/rulings don't follow the written word. We used to have a lot of these types of issues accumulated by end 2018, the reset aimed to remove them.

Perhaps Saw's question also covered this dimension???

[Augster]

I could fix this in a second. When using E5, take 2PS and drop wherever you want, no closer to the hole than the estimated point

You’re taking 2PS. Drop wherever you’d like. Simple.

[antip]

That is certainly simple. But it is far more generous than anyone ever intended, which was to get a ball back in play, not to provide the optimal line from the fairway for any given distance from the hole.

[antip]

[nsxguy]

Well, to be fair, the Local Rule was mainly intended(?) to save time in casual rounds and less formal tournaments.

In more formal tournaments the LR wouldn't be used.

Optimal line or not, net-net, in casual and lass formal situations, the guy would be lying 3. If it was Stableford it's likely double bogey and maybe a single point.

[antip]

All perfectly true. But my point remains, there's nothing remotely like this anywhere in the current playbook - allowing a player to move laterally across a hole to choose any angle they want. MLR E-5 should never be that Trojan horse.

[Mr. Bean]

In fact the answer given was not explicit enough IMO so I asked this very question already and waiting for a reply. By analogy I would assume that there are passages 2 cl's wide on both sides but as the dropping area is already on the fairway the passages are not that crucial IMO.

Let us see what they say.