or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Ignorant

Quote: Well, it seems to me that you have not quite grasped what I have tried to explain. But in the light of all the examples I've presented, what is your (own) opinion?
 I was expecting comments of much higher quality from you, Colin, but apparently you have made up your mind and refuse to think out of your box. Good day to you.
 The way I/we see this is that I/we are not interpreting the Rules but giving rulings based on Rules and course conditions. A hole made by a greenkeeper has not been scrupulously determined in the Rules so ad hoc interpretations are a must. It seems that as well as Colin you are also missing the concept, but as with Colin I will not spend time trying to convert you as I know from previous experience that is not worth a shot. However, I will throw in a question for you: On...
 There certainly is the intention to fill it with the post, right? I'm afraid you are too stuck with the words instead of trying to understand the concept but so be it, I am not going to spend time in persuading you. This is the interpretation we use and it is not uncommon to have varying interpretations in golf.
 I think Rulesman put it rather well. The hole needs to be of temporary nature. If your staff is not doing their job it does not preclude player from obtaining a free relief from an 'old' winter green hole as long as there is an intention to fill it. I do not see any problem there but I do see the need for interpretation afa a hole not to be filled is concerned. IMO that kind of hole is not GUR unless so marked because it is meant to be part of the course as it is.
  For a player or a referee it would also be difficult so say who has made a particular hole on the ground. The root of this interpretation is that not any hole made/created by greenkeeping staff is subject to free relief without any proper markings. Naturally it puts emphasis on the work by the Committee in marking the course but it also prevents players from taking free drops out of accidentally created holes and indentations, such as tire marks. I already described the...
 This I have been told my experienced referees and it all comes down to the fact that the Committee should ensure all GUR's are properly marked. Let us take an example. A greenkeeper decides to remove a rock from rough. Removing that rock leaves a void/hole in the ground but the greenkeeper feels that it is such a minor hole and pretty far away from the closely mown area that he decides to leave it as it is and let the grass eventually fill it. Strictly reading the...
 Only if that hole is to be filled by the staff, i.e. it is a temporary hole (or temporarily unfilled hole, such as a hole made for a stake) and made on purpose. For example a hole on the ground created by pulling a rock or a stump of a fallen tree out may or may not be GUR. If it is to be filled it is GUR, if not, then no.
 You do have a point there. Some players get nervous as soon as they even see a referee, then again some do not. This is just something they need to learn when competing. If they fall behind a referee is expected to show up at some point, and if they cannot pick up pace they will be re-visited by a referee again. Riding close is just a term. Once 'escorting' a group the referee should remain out of direct sight as much as possible but close enough to be able to help them....
 The way I see it, who gets rewarded are the players in the following groups as they do not need to wait all the time for the preceding group in trouble. Afa D34-2/3 is concerned this practice is very much consistent with it when you think of it. That Dec does not say that a referee must prevent all players from breaching a Rule but only those he can see being about to do it. Same thing with a slow group, they are ones in need of assistance. It goes without saying that if...
New Posts  All Forums: