Warning someone about to commit rules infraction. Advise??

[davep043]

36 minutes ago, Newby said:

Doesn't 15.2a(1) give relief?

 

If a player’s ball moves while they are removing a movable obstruction:

• There is no penalty,

Without the Local Rule, isn't a stone a Loose Impediment?  

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Without the Local Rule, isn't a stone a Loose Impediment?  

 

Exactly.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

Doesn't 15.2a(1) give relief?

 

If a player’s ball moves while they are removing a movable obstruction:

• There is no penalty,

Are stones moveable obstructions?  I suppose if they were artificially made they would be.🤔

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Are stones moveable obstructions?  I suppose if they were artificially made they would be.🤔

Yes and also a natural stone which has been shaped, but a stone in its natural state is a loose impediment, no matter its size.

Edited Sunday at 04:08 PM by Colin L

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

Yes and also a natural stone which has been shaped, but a stone in its natural state is a loose impediment, no matter its size.

According to the rules a moveable obstruction is artificial.

 

“Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.“

[davep043]

28 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

According to the rules a moveable obstruction is artificial.

 

“Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.“

Yeah, but a Loose Impediment can become a Moveable Obstruction if it goes through some kind of manufacturing process (Loose Impediment/2).  I'm on the fence as to whether crushing big rocks into crushed stone changes the status or not.  Loose Impediment/4 indicates to me that the kind of crushed stone used to surface a path (called "gravel" in the Clarification) retains its status as a Loose Impediment.  

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'm on the fence as to whether crushing big rocks into crushed stone changes the status or not. 

 

From my pow a natural thing is a man made object only when this particular thing has been individually handled into another shape/purpose. Splitting something into peaces with no intention those peaces to be identical in shape does not constitute manufacturing in my eyes.

 

Thus crushed rocks or wood retain their status as Loose Impediments.

 

( I am amazed how quickly this thread took a turn into a direction absolutely not needed and by people presenting comments/questions of such Rules that should be self-evident to even WRX'rs.)

Edited Sunday at 06:54 PM by Mr. Bean

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

From my pow a natural thing is a man made object only when this particular thing has been individually handled into another shape/purpose. Splitting something into peaces with no intention those peaces to be identical in shape does not constitute manufacturing in my eyes.

 

Thus crushed rocks or wood retain their status as Loose Impediments.

And this is the way I'm leaning as well, the reason I mentioned /4 in my response.

[Colin L]

But a path covered in gravel or wood chips is an immovable obstruction.  It's  a strange universe the Rules of Golf operate in.

[davep043]

14 minutes ago, Colin L said:

But a path covered in gravel or wood chips is an immovable obstruction.  It's  a strange universe the Rules of Golf operate in.

It kind of follows what @Mr. Bean said, when a bunch of Loose Impediments get assembled, they become an Obstruction, while retaining their individual status as Loose Impediments.  As we know, a single thing may fall under more than one definition.

[Mr. Bean]

17 minutes ago, Colin L said:

But a path covered in gravel or wood chips is an immovable obstruction.  It's  a strange universe the Rules of Golf operate in.

 

Not to mention that a path covered in gravel or wood chips may be declared to be an Integral Object of the course thus loosing its status as an Immovable Obstruction.

 

P.S. Colin, why is it "covered IN" and not "covered WITH" ?

[MtlJeff]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:21 AM, OnTheBag said:

I disagree completely.  While caddying on various tours for 3+ decades, we often advised other competitors of a possible rules infraction and recommended calling for an official.  Everyone interprets things differently and it is best to ask prior to making a mistake.  This is different than a flagrant violation used to gain an advantage but that's not what your post suggest.  

 

I started playing in some comps when i was younger, and i admittedly was still pretty new to the game and didn't know all of the rules. I was fortunate enough to be paired with people who a few different times did this for me and i always appreciated it. 

 

I do like this in general , about the people who play golf. There are many people out there who will do this for you, even if they could say, win a hole by letting you commit an infraction. 

 

Now, people need to do their best to learn the rules also. But still

[Newby]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

P.S. Colin, why is it "covered IN" and not "covered WITH" ?

Colloquial. Common usage 

[Archimedes65]

I tried to correct an opponent in an inter-club match once who was about to commit a rules violation, thinking I was being sportsmanlike.  He vehemently disagreed, and not in a nice way.  If he had been nice about it, I would have let it slide.  So I pulled out the phone, and shot a picture of what he was doing.  I beat him in the match, but showed the picture to the pros at the scoring table anyway and they agreed.  He got penalized and lost the hole.  And proceeded to argue with the pros, even though he lost either way.  Some people you just can’t reach.

[Mr. Bean]

10 hours ago, Newby said:

Colloquial. Common usage 

 

So not grammatically correct?

[Newby]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So not grammatically correct?

Grammar is a matter of opinion or a movable feast

[naval2006]

In competition at amateur level at least players help each other with proceedings and rules.  What you determine rulewise must be told to your marker and the latter must agree on the proceeding or otherwise call an official or the pro. This is not advice. And not telling a fellow player that they are to breach a rule is against the spirit of the game and utter lack of style. You can be a mediocre player, but always in style, baby. 

[Schulzmc]

14 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So not grammatically correct?

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/60805/covered-with-vs-covered-in-vs-covered-by

 

Yes - covered in, covered with, and covered by are all grammatically correct.

 

Also:

 

- Covered by is used to indicate something hidden or protected by something else.
- Covered with is used to describe something overlaid with another material.
- Covered in is used to describe something enveloped or surrounded by something else, often implying a more complete or thorough covering.

Edited 19 hours ago by Schulzmc

[Mr. Bean]

On 7/1/2024 at 6:59 PM, Newby said:

Grammar is a matter of opinion or a movable feast

 

I do not know what to say...

 

So in English language there is no official grammar but simply bunch of opinions by the users, is that it?

 

Must be easy for all the pupils in school.

[Mr. Bean]

18 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/60805/covered-with-vs-covered-in-vs-covered-by

 

Yes - covered in, covered with, and covered by are all grammatically correct.

 

Also:

 

- Covered by is used to indicate something hidden or protected by something else.
- Covered with is used to describe something overlaid with another material.
- Covered in is used to describe something enveloped or surrounded by something else, often implying a more complete or thorough covering.

 

Thank you. Now I know that I will not ask any more grammar questions from Newby. 🤭

[Newby]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I do not know what to say...

 

So in English language there is no official grammar but simply bunch of opinions by the users, is that it?

 

Must be easy for all the pupils in school.

There are formal grammar constructs taught in schools. But historically, English has had many and various sources and has many and various local dialects. Expressions are one minute fashionable and then next minute passé.

 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

Edited 29 minutes ago by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

23 minutes ago, Newby said:

There are formal grammar constructs taught in schools. But historically, English has had many and various sources and has many and various local dialects. Expressions are one minute fashionable and then next minute passé.

 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

 

Wow...

 

Here in Finland there is the grammar, period. Spoken language and expressions often deviate from grammar and as such they are incorrect language but used nonetheless, as I expect to be in all countries and nationalities. In this country pupils in schools get lower grades if they use incorrect grammar whenever correct grammar is to be used. I could have sworn this is the same in England.

 

Well, different countries, different rules. Some use formal grammar, some use Humpty Dumtpy ideology. 😂