Local Rule G-5, Prohibiting Use of Distance-Measuring Devices

[Halebopp]

I just noticed the local rule is written specifically to limit the use of electronic DMDs. I wonder if it's an overlook or a purposeful change from 2018. The Note in Rule 4.3a(1) doesn't limit the possible prohibition to electronic devices like the local rule does. Obviously I haven't officiated in a tournament with the LR in place. 🙂

 

[LeoLeo99]

Before, they were only allowed by LR. Now, they are only prohibited by LR.  

[Mr. Bean]

If I may guess that LR has been a demand by the R&A.

[Sawgrass]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

If I may guess that LR has been a demand by the R&A.

The USGA certainly seems to respect the LR, after all, they employ it in the US Open.

[Halebopp]

My apologies, I should have been a bit clearer... Have they intentionally allowed the use of non-electronic DMDs even when the Local Rule is in place or was it an oversight when writing the Model Local Rule?

 

If this is the actual Hard Card for the PGA Tour in 2019, they only limited it to electronic devices as per the Model Local Rule.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Halebopp

[Mr. Bean]

Wouldn't other than electronic DMDs be rather impractical and not accurate enough?

[Halebopp]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Wouldn't other than electronic DMDs be rather impractical and not accurate enough?

 

Possibly, but that's beside the point.

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Possibly, but that's beside the point.

 

My guess is that as electronic DMDs are the only ones used for measuring longer distances than a couple of metres the wording of G-5 is drafted on purpose. In plain words, nobody is expected to use other than electronic DMD's.

 

But you have a point there that in the Note the message could have been more coherent matching the wording of G-5.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:28 PM, Halebopp said:

 

Possibly, but that's beside the point.

 

I started thinking that perhaps that IS the point.

 

The purpose of limiting the use of electronical (read: highly accurate) DMDs is to prevent the players from obtaining accurate distances. Thus devices producing less than accurate distances are allowed as they would not give a real advantage to anyone and, as we have seen from the era before electronic DMDs, are not commonly used.

[Hawkeye77]

On 10/22/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr. Bean said:

If I may guess that LR has been a demand by the R&A.

 

LOL, no.

[Mr. Bean]

So you have insight information on this? Do share it with us.

[RSinSG]

I had one of these in the 70’s. I don’t recall it being very accurate.

[Halebopp]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I started thinking that perhaps that IS the point.

 

The purpose of limiting the use of electronical (read: highly accurate) DMDs is to prevent the players from obtaining accurate distances. Thus devices producing less than accurate distances are allowed as they would not give a real advantage to anyone and, as we have seen from the era before electronic DMDs, are not commonly used.

 

It might be a reason for the change but the point of my question was merely about the change itself.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, RSinSG said:

I had one of these in the 70’s. I don’t recall it being very accurate.

 

I tested one of those once yeaaaaars ago. No, that was not accurate, not even close 😂

[Mr. Bean]

56 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

It might be a reason for the change but the point of my question was merely about the change itself.

I suppose you mean the wording is your concern. The reason for change we seem to have come to an agreement upon, sort of.

[antip]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:43 AM, Halebopp said:

My apologies, I should have been a bit clearer... Have they intentionally allowed the use of non-electronic DMDs even when the Local Rule is in place or was it an oversight when writing the Model Local Rule?

 

If this is the actual Hard Card for the PGA Tour in 2019, they only limited it to electronic devices as per the Model Local Rule.

This is an excellent question that can probably only be answered by RBs.  Remember this?

 

14-3/2
Pencil or Score Card Used to Assist in Gauging Distance
Q. It is possible to gauge distance to a putting green by holding a score card
or pencil at arm’s length and comparing it with the height of the flagstick. Is
such a practice permissible?
A. Yes. Provided the score card or pencil has not been specially marked, its use
in this manner is traditionally accepted and Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies.
Use of anything specially marked to gauge distance is a breach of Rule
14-3. However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3.

 

The mapping summary chart says this has not changed - implying (it's a brave person that puts 100% faith in this document) a non-electronic DMD such as a specially marked score card/pencil - may be illegitimate. But the wording of 4.3a(1) and the reference to 'electronic' in the MLR that bans use of a DMD do not seem to proscribe such a non-electronic tool.  

 

So your question of accident versus deliberate is both interesting and valid. 

[2bGood]

On 10/22/2020 at 12:21 PM, Mr. Bean said:

Wouldn't other than electronic DMDs be rather impractical and not accurate enough?

Measuring tape is more accurate than pacing of putts. 

[2bGood]

Another thought, is a yardage book a (non electronic) measuring device? A bit of stretch, but perhaps the wording is very much intentional? 

[2bGood]

Also this is somewhat interesting but from 2018. 
 

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bryson-dechambeau-compass-ruling-its-unfortunate

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Another thought, is a yardage book a (non electronic) measuring device? A bit of stretch, but perhaps the wording is very much intentional? 

 

No, it is not. You do not measure distances with a notebook. Well, at least not around here...

[Mr. Bean]

13 hours ago, antip said:

This is an excellent question that can probably only be answered by RBs.  Remember this?

 

14-3/2
Pencil or Score Card Used to Assist in Gauging Distance
Q. It is possible to gauge distance to a putting green by holding a score card
or pencil at arm’s length and comparing it with the height of the flagstick. Is
such a practice permissible?
A. Yes. Provided the score card or pencil has not been specially marked, its use
in this manner is traditionally accepted and Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies.
Use of anything specially marked to gauge distance is a breach of Rule
14-3. However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3.

 

The mapping summary chart says this has not changed - implying (it's a brave person that puts 100% faith in this document) a non-electronic DMD such as a specially marked score card/pencil - may be illegitimate. But the wording of 4.3a(1) and the reference to 'electronic' in the MLR that bans use of a DMD do not seem to proscribe such a non-electronic tool.  

 

So your question of accident versus deliberate is both interesting and valid. 

 

IMO it was a stupid Decision to start with.

 

In order to benefit from such a well-known way of estimating (!!) heights and distances one needs to know the exact dimensions of the object being held at arms-length as well as the distance between one's eye and the object being held. So, as a player may use ANY (pre-measured) object he desires there is no rational reason whatsoever to forbid any marking to be made on the object used.

 

That Decision sounds like something that just had to be written but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Also this is somewhat interesting but from 2018. 
 

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bryson-dechambeau-compass-ruling-its-unfortunate

 

What exactly is a drawing compass?

[Halebopp]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What exactly is a drawing compass?

 

Harppi.

[2bGood]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No, it is not. You do not measure distances with a notebook. Well, at least not around here...

You do measure distance with a maps and charts (wich is what a yardage book is). A yardage book is clearly a tool to determine distance. 

 

At the end of the day the rational for the change in the rules, was as stated, that yardage books give the same distance information as electronic measuring devices - just in a different way. So there is not a question the RB's see yardage books as measurement tools, the question (again it is a stretch) is if the wording 'electronic' was added intentionally.

Edited October 25, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What exactly is a drawing compass?

 

You use it transfer distance when reading maps and charts (ie yardage books). If you used it along with scale map, you could measure precise distances.

 

Here is a bit more on it:

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

36 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

You do measure distance with a maps and charts 

 

No, you do not. You measure distances FROM maps and charts. Huge difference, and that is why this drawing compass came up. It was not the map or chart that was the problem but the device WITH WHICH he measured the distances (or at least could have, and that was enough to make it a breach).

 

EDIT: Just to make my point: as DMDs were forbidden altogether pre-2019 (without the LR allowing the use of), how come the stroke savers were allowed...?

Edited October 25, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[Slagathor]

No comment on legality, but for accuracy:

 

With a couple of Google searches, it looks like an optical rangefinder's practical accuracy clocks in at about 3.7%.  This is based on field testing performed by the USFS on various rangefinders, and is for a handheld model - no tripod, etc.  So for practical use, that would equate to a potential error of about 7.5 yards at 200 yards out.

 

Based on reviewing various golf rangefinder tests and the USFS laser tests, the results vary quite a bit.  Laser rangefinders are quite accurate if there is a reflective target used.  However, assuming we are talking tournament play without a reflective device on the flagstick the results vary from about 1.5% to 4%.  Based on reading a couple if actual tests of golf rangefinders, it looks like those tests show a practical accuracy of 2% non-slope corrected.  The golf tests did not indicate, however, if there was a reflector/prism on the stick when testing.  So, assuming the 2% number is in the ballpark, that would give a practical accuracy of around 4 yards of error at 200 yards.

 

I'm unclear how this would compare with estimating distance to the pin with a pro yardage book, as I have no real experience there.

[rogolf]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

No, you do not. You measure distances FROM maps and charts. Huge difference, and that is why this drawing compass came up. It was not the map or chart that was the problem but the device WITH WHICH he measured the distances (or at least could have, and that was enough to make it a breach).

 

EDIT: Just to make my point: as DMDs were forbidden altogether pre-2019 (without the LR allowing the use of), how come the stroke savers were allowed...?

A little research in past Rules editions says they are "traditionally accepted".

[antip]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

IMO it was a stupid Decision to start with.

 

In order to benefit from such a well-known way of estimating (!!) heights and distances one needs to know the exact dimensions of the object being held at arms-length as well as the distance between one's eye and the object being held. So, as a player may use ANY (pre-measured) object he desires there is no rational reason whatsoever to forbid any marking to be made on the object used.

 

That Decision sounds like something that just had to be written but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

For people practised in this skill, it was accurate. And golf rules banned it.

https://www.osc.co.uk/tools/range-estimation-using-range-stick/

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Slagathor said:

No comment on legality, but for accuracy:

 

With a couple of Google searches, it looks like an optical rangefinder's practical accuracy clocks in at about 3.7%.  This is based on field testing performed by the USFS on various rangefinders, and is for a handheld model - no tripod, etc.  So for practical use, that would equate to a potential error of about 7.5 yards at 200 yards out.

 

Based on reviewing various golf rangefinder tests and the USFS laser tests, the results vary quite a bit.  Laser rangefinders are quite accurate if there is a reflective target used.  However, assuming we are talking tournament play without a reflective device on the flagstick the results vary from about 1.5% to 4%.  Based on reading a couple if actual tests of golf rangefinders, it looks like those tests show a practical accuracy of 2% non-slope corrected.  The golf tests did not indicate, however, if there was a reflector/prism on the stick when testing.  So, assuming the 2% number is in the ballpark, that would give a practical accuracy of around 4 yards of error at 200 yards.

 

I'm unclear how this would compare with estimating distance to the pin with a pro yardage book, as I have no real experience there.

Do you have a link to their tests?  Usually laser rangefinder error is not proportional to distance measured.