Preferred Lies (Winter Rules)

[DaveLeeNC]

Process at Other Clubs

For clubs that use preferred lies in the winter, what process does your club use? The USGA Handicap Manual suggests a local rule put in place by "the committee".

At our club the Men's Golf Association and Women's Golf Association tend to take ownership of the decision (although no formal local rule is recorded that I am aware of) and the rest of the club generally follows suit.

I wondered how other clubs handle this.

dave

ps. Folks who want to get on their 'I only play the ball down regardless pedastal', please start your own thread.

[hos]

Good move putting in the 'p.s.' At our course its kind of a given (winter rules) most of the year with the conditions that exist most of the time. I think that during league days the members of the league discuss and decide what they are doing that day. But as I said first, for general play everyone just uses common sense as each day or week will be different.

[QuickFeet]

Between Thanksgiving and Easter, our golf association will allow you to move the ball the length of a grip. This is through the green only. It's enough to get you out of a divot or rut made by a cart, but generally not enough to let you change a shot (next to OB fence, behind a tree, etc.) to your advantage. Generally seems to work pretty good.

[ultra45]

as long as the rule is clearly defined to everyone... most people wouldn't have a problem with that... the options are being able to move the ball through the green or fairway only... and then the length of move no closer to the hole... i've seen various lengths from 6 inches to a club.... and being able to place vs bump with the clubhead...

[farmer]

We have native grass that cannot be maintained to the level necessary to play it down, so we play winter rules year round. I like playing it down, but not possible.

[DaveLeeNC]

Thanks for the comments. Based on this limited sample it sounds as if something kind of informal is not that unusual.

I asked because I end up 'owning' this decision for our club. I am the guy who defines the weekly competition games for our Men's Golf Association, so I own 'the conditions of the competition' which seems to set the rules club-wise (in an informal way).

I don't like this 'singular ownership' but have the advantage that about the right time to change is when our annual Match Play Championship occurs (takes 2 weeks to complete). So I can at least make it a joint decision between me and someone on the tournament committee.

At our club (North Carolina) we have bermuda fairways which are totally dormant off-season. But the fairways are overseeded with rye (which requires that the bermuda be literally scalped). THe problem is that they overseed enough to make the fairways appear green from the teebox, but the fairways themselves are actually this checkerboard of rye and dormant bermuda (little 1/2" patches of rye and 1/2" patches of scalped bermuda for the ball to sit down in). If they didn't overseed I would support playing the ball down all year unless the unhealed divots get out of hand. Dormant bermuda that isn't scalped plays just fine. Scalped bermuda in our sandy soil is almost like a super-firm bunker shot.

Last year a tourney committee guy (20 handicapper) and me (mid single digits) took 20 balls and threw them into a couple of driver landing areas and areas around the green to judge conditions. We were looking for generally 'good or playable lies'. What was interesting was that we didn't get very many 'damn, what a bad break' lies. But darn near every lie that we encountered was marginal (to me a marginal lie was one where if I wanted to hit a 3w I would have second throughts because of the lie, but would probably do it anyway). My 20 handicapper partner viewed almost every lie as one that would compromise his club choice - interesting.

Anyway - we ended up playing the ball down on one of the courses and winter rules on the other (by the next week it was obviously time to play the ball down). But it was an interesting exercize.

dave

ps. My alternative suggestion is to start playing the ball down on April 15 because all the golfers are used to getting screwed on that date anyway :-) For you internationals, April 15 is the day US Federal and State Income Taxes are due.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='15 March 2010 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1268659013' post='2316748']
Thanks for the comments. Based on this limited sample it sounds as if something kind of informal is not that unusual.

I asked because I end up 'owning' this decision for our club. I am the guy who defines the weekly competition games for our Men's Golf Association, so I own 'the conditions of the competition' which seems to set the rules club-wise (in an informal way).

I don't like this 'singular ownership' but have the advantage that about the right time to change is when our annual Match Play Championship occurs (takes 2 weeks to complete). So I can at least make it a joint decision between me and someone on the tournament committee.

At our club (North Carolina) we have bermuda fairways which are totally dormant off-season. But the fairways are overseeded with rye (which requires that the bermuda be literally scalped). THe problem is that they overseed enough to make the fairways appear green from the teebox, but the fairways themselves are actually this checkerboard of rye and dormant bermuda (little 1/2" patches of rye and 1/2" patches of scalped bermuda for the ball to sit down in). If they didn't overseed I would support playing the ball down all year unless the unhealed divots get out of hand. Dormant bermuda that isn't scalped plays just fine. Scalped bermuda in our sandy soil is almost like a super-firm bunker shot.

Last year a tourney committee guy (20 handicapper) and me (mid single digits) took 20 balls and threw them into a couple of driver landing areas and areas around the green to judge conditions. We were looking for generally 'good or playable lies'. What was interesting was that we didn't get very many 'damn, what a bad break' lies. But darn near every lie that we encountered was marginal (to me a marginal lie was one where if I wanted to hit a 3w I would have second throughts because of the lie, but would probably do it anyway). My 20 handicapper partner viewed almost every lie as one that would compromise his club choice - interesting.

Anyway - we ended up playing the ball down on one of the courses and winter rules on the other (by the next week it was obviously time to play the ball down). But it was an interesting exercize.

dave

ps. My alternative suggestion is to start playing the ball down on April 15 because all the golfers are used to getting screwed on that date anyway :-) For you internationals, April 15 is the day US Federal and State Income Taxes are due.
[/quote]

I should have added the following explanation of why this was 'so interesting'.

As I said I found the typical lie to be marginal WRT hitting a 3w. My view was, well, that is marginal. The high handicapper agreed with the 'marginal WRT hitting a 3w' perspective. But his view was (validly, IMHO) that this is hardly a 'marginal situation' over-all. He said "I am hitting a 3w on pretty much every second shot other than the par 3's. I'm used to hitting a 5w or 7w occasionally, but this REALLY impacts my game". He was a reasonable guy trying to do the right thing. Like I said - I found it an interesting exercize.

FWIW, we have this year "opened up the forward tees" to anybody who wants to play them in our weekly competitions. In some bizarre way, maybe this should affect (to some extent) the timing of our move from winter to summer rules. The typical lie this time of year is "5i - shut up and hit the ball... 3w - might be a problem".

[kiwidave]

I winter down here, which is fast approaching going by the last couple of days. We have a local clean and place rule at 99% of courses. It does vary a little from course to course, some (mine) it is on all fairways, some it's only your fairway (the hole your playing).
If your in rough, tough, learn to hit it straighter I got told a few years ago.

[Newby]

[quote name='kiwidave' date='16 March 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1268730549' post='2319097']
some it's only your fairway (the hole your playing).
[/quote]

To restrict it to the fairway of the hole you are playing would be an unauthorised local rule.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Newby' date='16 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1268771117' post='2320425']
[quote name='kiwidave' date='16 March 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1268730549' post='2319097']
some it's only your fairway (the hole your playing).
[/quote]

To restrict it to the fairway of the hole you are playing would be an unauthorised local rule.
[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the term "unauthorized local rule". So I am assuming that you are saying that this violates the Rules of Golf. Since Appendix I-4-C clearly allows lift/clean/place to be applied only to closely mown areas (generally fairways), I assume that isn't what you are referring to. Are you are referring to 'closely mown areas' other than n the hole that you are playing? Do you have a reference or something here? I-4-C specifically allows "more restricted areas" than just all 'closely mown areas through the green'. But the single example that they give isn't very illuminating regarding this.

What are you referring to here? I'm not saying you are wrong - just that I am not aware of the issue here. Is it just the wording that uses the term fairways, rather than 'closely mown areas', which is slightly more general than fairways and also defined in the ROG?

Thanks.

dave

[ScooterMcTavish]

Hey Dave,

One other consideration (you may remember this discussion from last spring) is that the worst thing a committee can do (like ours) was not make a local rule at all. So even though the course was flooded and only opened in July to basically hardpan/river mud all over the course, the committee did not establish a rule. Worst part is that it was unfeasible to mark the course as "grounds under repair" as it simply wasn't feasible.

So some guys played pick and clean, some guys bopped their ball with their clubhead, some guys played it down. This meant that those who followed the rules (as they should have in the absence of a local committee ruling) were at a real disadvantage.

Your approach is sound to me - having different committee members of different handicaps deciding on the local rule is valuable. Ultimately, worst case scenario is that now every player has a level playing field.

To me "closely mown" is fairly self explanatory, and I believe Newby is correct. If it is a fairway, the rule applies. If there are any other hellacious areas where the course is kaput, this deserves a ground under repair staking or marking.

I am also a fan of the KISS principle - the simpler the local rule, the less open to arguements and interpretation it is. So if you get a junk lie in any fairway, specifically state the remedial action (P&C, drop, 1 club length placement, etc.). As soon as you start introducing additional qualifications or don't specify what exactly relief is, disputes arise.

FYI, I'm now on the board of my course, and one of my initiatives is that we ensure GUR is staked (or even flourescent spray painted), and ensure that local rules (if needed) are communicated, adhered to, and enforced.

Good luck with your season, and it sounds like you're already 95% there. You're talking about it, inspecting the course, and clarifying the rules. All that's left is to publish the rules and ensure they are known and upheld.

[Newby]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='16 March 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1268774358' post='2320626']
[quote name='Newby' date='16 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1268771117' post='2320425']
[quote name='kiwidave' date='16 March 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1268730549' post='2319097']
some it's only your fairway (the hole your playing).
[/quote]

To restrict it to the fairway of the hole you are playing would be an unauthorised local rule.
[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the term "unauthorized local rule". So I am assuming that you are saying that this violates the Rules of Golf. Since Appendix I-4-C clearly allows lift/clean/place to be applied only to closely mown areas (generally fairways), I assume that isn't what you are referring to.

What are you referring to here?

[/quote]

Dave

I should have explained more clearly.

If the club decides to use the LR (in the appendix) they must specify the area(s) of ground involved.

So if conditions on the third fairway only warrant its use then the LR must say so.


[i]eg "A ball lying on a closely mown area [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#ThroughtheGreen"][i]through the green[/i][/url][or specify a more restricted area, [color="#ff0000"]e.g., at the 3rd hole[/color]] may be lifted without penalty and ........."[/i]

However there is no provision in the draft rule to limit the relief to players on the 3rd hole only. A player who hits a stray shot from the 4th hole onto the 3rd fairway must have the same relief options as players playing the 3rd hole.

If the area is bad enough to warrant relief it doesn't matter where the ball was originally played from. The ground doesn't suddenly become 'playable' for a stray shot.

Incidentally, the area may be even more specific. eg the area on the 3rd fairway between the 150 yard markers and the green.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' date='17 March 2010 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1268853666' post='2323103']
Hey Dave,

One other consideration (you may remember this discussion from last spring) is that the worst thing a committee can do (like ours) was not make a local rule at all. So even though the course was flooded and only opened in July to basically hardpan/river mud all over the course, the committee did not establish a rule. Worst part is that it was unfeasible to mark the course as "grounds under repair" as it simply wasn't feasible.

So some guys played pick and clean, some guys bopped their ball with their clubhead, some guys played it down. This meant that those who followed the rules (as they should have in the absence of a local committee ruling) were at a real disadvantage.

Your approach is sound to me - having different committee members of different handicaps deciding on the local rule is valuable. Ultimately, worst case scenario is that now every player has a level playing field.

To me "closely mown" is fairly self explanatory, and I believe Newby is correct. If it is a fairway, the rule applies. If there are any other hellacious areas where the course is kaput, this deserves a ground under repair staking or marking.

I am also a fan of the KISS principle - the simpler the local rule, the less open to arguements and interpretation it is. So if you get a junk lie in any fairway, specifically state the remedial action (P&C, drop, 1 club length placement, etc.). As soon as you start introducing additional qualifications or don't specify what exactly relief is, disputes arise.

FYI, I'm now on the board of my course, and one of my initiatives is that we ensure GUR is staked (or even flourescent spray painted), and ensure that local rules (if needed) are communicated, adhered to, and enforced.

Good luck with your season, and it sounds like you're already 95% there. You're talking about it, inspecting the course, and clarifying the rules. All that's left is to publish the rules and ensure they are known and upheld.
[/quote]

Scooter, is there an issue with 'more restrictive rules' that limit lift/clean/place to your own fairway? I can imagine that there MIGHT be. But I'd like something more specific if you have it, since we have been using that as a rule for quite a while now.

Thanks.

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Newby' date='17 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1268858022' post='2323269']
[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='16 March 2010 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1268774358' post='2320626']
[quote name='Newby' date='16 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1268771117' post='2320425']
[quote name='kiwidave' date='16 March 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1268730549' post='2319097']
some it's only your fairway (the hole your playing).
[/quote]

To restrict it to the fairway of the hole you are playing would be an unauthorised local rule.
[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the term "unauthorized local rule". So I am assuming that you are saying that this violates the Rules of Golf. Since Appendix I-4-C clearly allows lift/clean/place to be applied only to closely mown areas (generally fairways), I assume that isn't what you are referring to.

What are you referring to here?

[/quote]

Dave

I should have explained more clearly.

If the club decides to use the LR (in the appendix) they must specify the area(s) of ground involved.

So if conditions on the third fairway only warrant its use then the LR must say so.


[i]eg "A ball lying on a closely mown area [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#ThroughtheGreen"][i]through the green[/i][/url][or specify a more restricted area, [color="#ff0000"]e.g., at the 3rd hole[/color]] may be lifted without penalty and ........."[/i]

However there is no provision in the draft rule to limit the relief to players on the 3rd hole only. A player who hits a stray shot from the 4th hole onto the 3rd fairway must have the same relief options as players playing the 3rd hole.

If the area is bad enough to warrant relief it doesn't matter where the ball was originally played from. The ground doesn't suddenly become 'playable' for a stray shot.

Incidentally, the area may be even more specific. eg the area on the 3rd fairway between the 150 yard markers and the green.
[/quote]

That seems reasonable. But the example is only an example. Is there something more specific in the rules? This sounds like something that I would expect to see in a ROG Decision. But the Decision Database has nothing that is referenced in the appendix.

Thanks.

dave

[Newby]

Dave

See my post just above yours.

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Newby' date='17 March 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1268858457' post='2323282']
Dave

See my post just above yours.
[/quote]

I saw it (even quoted it). But an example of a 'more restrictive rule' doesn't set any boundaries for 'what a more restrictive rule' might be. If I am going to change a long standing practice at our club, I really need something better than what i've got. And going directly to the USGA is probably the right answer. But since I am here ......

dave

[ScooterMcTavish]

Hi Dave,

I think the decision on what releief to give is at the club level, and if L/C/P has been in use for some time only in the fairway you are playing (again KISS), then I would be very hesitant to change this simply to avoid all the hassles this will create.

Newby is applying sound logic in his interpretation of the rule - if the area where relief is granted is unfairly bad, then it is bad regardless of how you got there. I think the same logic can also be applied to ground under repair - if it is GUR, then you get relief, also regardless of how you got there.

However, I do share your concern - what exactly constitutes a "more restrictive rule" as the word "restrictive" is inherently subjective? Unfortunately, maybe calling the PGA or consulting with a club or local pro may be the best option at this point if you want to ensure your local rules are still within your committee's jurisdiction.

Sorry I can't provide any more help than that! Still glad to see that you want to do this right - it's nice to play the ball down, but it is also important for courses to recognise when this is not feasible (also be nice to change some OB areas to lateral hazards too, would help speed up play).

Good luck

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' date='17 March 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1268861908' post='2323397']
Hi Dave,

I think the decision on what releief to give is at the club level, and if L/C/P has been in use for some time only in the fairway you are playing (again KISS), then I would be very hesitant to change this simply to avoid all the hassles this will create.

Newby is applying sound logic in his interpretation of the rule - if the area where relief is granted is unfairly bad, then it is bad regardless of how you got there. I think the same logic can also be applied to ground under repair - if it is GUR, then you get relief, also regardless of how you got there.

However, I do share your concern - what exactly constitutes a "more restrictive rule" as the word "restrictive" is inherently subjective? Unfortunately, maybe calling the PGA or consulting with a club or local pro may be the best option at this point if you want to ensure your local rules are still within your committee's jurisdiction.

Sorry I can't provide any more help than that! Still glad to see that you want to do this right - it's nice to play the ball down, but it is also important for courses to recognise when this is not feasible (also be nice to change some OB areas to lateral hazards too, would help speed up play).

Good luck
[/quote]

Actually, I think that I could take either position.

What (I think) Newby is saying is that if the fairways are unfair when the fairway that you are on matches the tee that you teed off from, then they are also unfair when the fairway that you are on doesn't match the tee that you teed off from. Seems reasonable.

However L/C/P when you just duckhooked your ball off the planet while the guy who had just a smidge of extra fade is digging the ball out of a mudhole is (on the one hand) the way golf is and, on the other hand, somewhat avoidable.

I have a good contact within the Carolina's Golf Association for Handicap and Rules stuff, so I'll probably ask him. But I do want to be on firm ground before I go mucking around in something we've been doing for a number of years and before I bother this guy.

dave

[Newby]

I saw it (even quoted it). But an example of a 'more restrictive rule' doesn't set any boundaries for 'what a more restrictive rule' might be. If I am going to change a long standing practice at our club, I really need something better than what i've got. And going directly to the USGA is probably the right answer. But since I am here ......

 

dave

 

Dave

 

You will see the principle in Decision 33-8/20 and more closely related in Dec 33-8/23

 

33-8/23 Local Rule Denying Relief from Ground Under Repair During Play of Particular Hole

 

Q. An area of ground under repair is situated on the fair-way of the 2nd hole, which is parallel to the 1st hole. Is it permissible to make a Local Rule prohibiting relief from this ground under repair during the play of the 1st hole?

 

A. No.

 

Knowing about this practice, I asked about its relevance to preferred lies at a rules school a couple of years ago and it was confirmed. But I didn't think to get a confirmation for my collection.But I think the decision itself clinches it.

[DaveLeeNC]

I saw it (even quoted it). But an example of a 'more restrictive rule' doesn't set any boundaries for 'what a more restrictive rule' might be. If I am going to change a long standing practice at our club, I really need something better than what i've got. And going directly to the USGA is probably the right answer. But since I am here ......

 

dave

 

Dave

 

You will see the principle in Decision 33-8/20 and more closely related in Dec 33-8/23

 

33-8/23 Local Rule Denying Relief from Ground Under Repair During Play of Particular Hole

 

Q. An area of ground under repair is situated on the fair-way of the 2nd hole, which is parallel to the 1st hole. Is it permissible to make a Local Rule prohibiting relief from this ground under repair during the play of the 1st hole?

 

A. No.

 

Knowing about this practice, I asked about its relevance to preferred lies at a rules school a couple of years ago and it was confirmed. But I didn't think to get a confirmation for my collection.But I think the decision itself clinches it.

 

That is a pretty good argument, I agree.

 

OTOH, Appendix I-4-c would seem to me to state that GUR conditions and 'preferred lie' conditions are different within the Rules of Golf.

 

dave

 

dave

[Newby]

Dave
See the Definition of Rule/Rules

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='Newby' date='18 March 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1268900611' post='2324524']
Dave
See the Definition of Rule/Rules
[/quote]

I didn't find that helpful in this case.

And keep in mind that I am intentionally playing 'devils advocate' here because that is exactly what I will be facing when/if I change a long standing procedure in our organization (which is large - over 600 members typically and a handful will object to just about anything you do no matter how reasonable).

Since the decision was clearly a GUR decision and the RoG seem to take pains to avoid making winter rules a GUR situation, I am being cautious here (despite the fact that applying the GUR logic to 'winter rules' SEEMS pretty obvious).

I have sent an inquiry to my local Carolina's Golf Association contact regarding this. In the past he has been far more responsive than the 2-3 weeks that I have experienced when going directly to the USGA with similar questions.

I'll post a summary of his response(s).

dave

[ScooterMcTavish]

Thanks Dave,

Looking forward to the result. Please post back!

[Newby]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='18 March 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1268913774' post='2324623']
[quote name='Newby' date='18 March 2010 - 04:23 AM' timestamp='1268900611' post='2324524']
Dave
See the Definition of Rule/Rules
[/quote]

I have sent an inquiry to my local Carolina's Golf Association contact regarding this. In the past he has been far more responsive than the 2-3 weeks that I have experienced when going directly to the USGA with similar questions.


[/quote]

Please be aware the the CGA can not give you an official answer unless they get it from the USGA.

But I will interested in their reply.
In the meantime I'll see if I can get an answer from my contacts in the R&A.

[DaveLeeNC]

I have had the following email dialogue with a Carolina's Golf Association Handicap/Rules director. This would make it a very informed opinion, but not an official USGA answer. I have often exchanged emails with this guy so I have cut out the "chatty stuff" (like how is your son doing) and left out some long reference stuff. So here goes:

 

Dave: Is there a Rules of Golf issue with either a local rule or rule of the competition (context is 'winter rules/preferred lies') that limits lift clean and place to your own fairway? I know that the Rules of Golf would allow it to be applied only to 'closely mown areas' (which is mostly all the fairways rather than just your own fairway). And the Rules of Golf allow 'more restrictive rules' than all closely mown areas.

 

But I have heard the limitation of Lift/Clean/Place to your own fairway being questioned as 'invalid'. Are they correct about that?

CGA:

 

Not often does someone pose a question that crosses from the Rules of Golf into the handicap manual, but you did that this morning.

 

 

From Section 7 of the USGA handicap manual, as well as stuff from the last rule of golf the USGA says you can be more specific than closely mown areas. But you can see that they also suggest you be a whole lot more specific, maybe identifying which holes qualify rather than the whole course.

Then he copied/pasted a number of relevant USGA handicap and Rules sections that I am ommiting here.

 

Dave:

 

The issue was raised in the context of the following decision:

 

 

33-8/23 Local Rule Denying Relief from Ground Under Repair During Play of Particular Hole

 

Q. An area of ground under repair is situated on the fair-way of the 2nd hole, which is parallel to the 1st hole. Is it permissible to make a Local Rule prohibiting relief from this ground under repair during the play of the 1st hole?

 

A. No.

 

And they made the extrapolation to Preferred Lies and limiting relief to "your own fairway". Would I be correct in saying that the above decision is not directly related to Winter Rules?

 

CGA:

 

After pondering your first e-mail, I figured the reason for the question was the fact that the USGA does not define “fairway” in the Rules of Golf. The USGA likes closely mown areas because it also covers those aisles from teeing grounds to fairways and areas around greens that are cut to fairway height.

 

Now I see that their thinking is connected to the decision you quoted. 33-8/23 exists because someone wondered if an area could be called ground under repair if golfers are on one hole but not on another hole. The USGA decision here means to say that GUR is GUR, no matter what hole you are playing. See also Decision 33-8/20.

 

 

If you are wandering around in the USGA decisions book, look at page 513 (the middle of the page) to find the same statement that is in the handicap manual.

 

 

I guess their question is a fair one, but they have mis-interpreted the intent of that decision.

 

END OF EMAIL DIALOGUE

 

 

I access the USGA Decisions database via www.usga.org which (as best as I can tell) does not have the referenced book online.

 

Since this whole thing (from a CGA perspective) started out as an intersection of Handicap System Rules and Rules of Golf, I'm not sure that you (necessarily) get to the same place with the R&A (which I assume has no interest in the USGA Handicap System).

 

dave

 

 

[Newby]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' date='18 March 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1268930480' post='2325115']
[size="2"][color="blue"][size="2"][color="#000000"][font="Verdana"]Since this whole thing (from a CGA perspective) started out as an intersection of Handicap System Rules and Rules of Golf, I'm not sure that you (necessarily) get to the same place with the R&A (which I assume has no interest in the USGA Handicap System).

dave[/color][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]

Dave

I don't think your contact has really got to the point of the question. It has absolutely nothing to do with handicapping.

Not only does the R&A have no interest in the USGA system, they have no interest in any handicapping systems. Nor do the rules of golf.

The USGA (with its rules hat on) and the R&A will always make the same decision. They are after all the same rules, written jointly.
If on or party believes it needs in depth consideration they will contact each other. As you might expect, I don't see this happening here.

As I understand it the USGA handicapping system requires/permits scores to be returned when unauthorised local rules are in force.

I expect a reply shortly from the R&A.

[DaveLeeNC]

Since this whole thing (from a CGA perspective) started out as an intersection of Handicap System Rules and Rules of Golf, I'm not sure that you (necessarily) get to the same place with the R&A (which I assume has no interest in the USGA Handicap System).

 

dave

 

Dave

 

I don't think your contact has really got to the point of the question. It has absolutely nothing to do with handicapping.

 

Not only does the R&A have no interest in the USGA system, they have no interest in any handicapping systems. Nor do the rules of golf.

 

The USGA (with its rules hat on) and the R&A will always make the same decision. They are after all the same rules, written jointly.

If on or party believes it needs in depth consideration they will contact each other. As you might expect, I don't see this happening here.

 

As I understand it the USGA handicapping system requires/permits scores to be returned when unauthorised local rules are in force.

 

I expect a reply shortly from the R&A.

 

Regarding the handicapping system in the US, I don't know what an "unauthorized local rule" is unless it is a rule that violates the RoG. But the US handicap system most certainly permits the posting of scores that are 'wrong' (WRT the RoG) on an almost routine basis.

 

USGA Handicap Manual 4-2 says the following

 

If a player does not play a hole or plays it other than under "The Rules of Golf" (except for preferred lies), he must ....

 

which certainly does imply that valid USGA Handicap System Preferred Lie rules and USGA Rules of Golf Preferred Lie rules may well be different.

 

dave

 

ps. Interestingly the Google search string of +golf +"unauthorized local rule" yields exactly zero matches. Changing to the UK spelling (unauthorised) yields one match. Guess it isn't a hot topic

[Newby]

[quote]If a player does not play a hole or plays it other than under "The Rules of Golf" (except for [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#preferredLies"]preferred lies[/url][/i]), he must ....[/quote]

I had noticed that before and thought it strange. Goodness knows what they mean.

[quote]Regarding the handicapping system in the US, I don't know what an "unauthorized local rule" is unless it is a rule that violates the RoG.[/quote]

The most well know culprit it the use of red stakes when there is no water hazard in the vicinity.

I asked the USGA how they can give a course a rating when such a Local Rule is in force on a course and they said that they rate all courses on the premise that all LRs (now and in future) satisfy the requirements of the Appendix.

[Bonneville85308]

Our season runs from April 1st to October 31st. Outside of that time, it's always "winter rules" at my club. I have no idea how it relates to USGA rules though.

[Newby]

[quote name='cherokee8215' date='18 March 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1268954645' post='2325884']
Our season runs from April 1st to October 31st. Outside of that time, it's always "winter rules" at my club. I have no idea how it relates to USGA rules though.
[/quote]

'Preferred Lies' and 'Winter Rules' are the same thing.