or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by turtleback

I remember back in the day when course ratings were first being talked about the original formula was to divide the yardage by 200 and add 38.25. This is an interesting article from back in 1977 when they were changing from that yardage-only based system to the present system. http://www.popeofslope.com/history/newratings.html Slope, of course, is another matter and that was what I really meant when I referenced course rating.
 This does NOT sound right to me.  Are the course ratings different depending on which set of rules are in play**?  And on what basis are people entering rounds as Tournament rounds that were not played in a tournament?   While I am not an expert I have always understood that the distinguishing factor of a tournament round is the competition, not the rules under which a round  was played.  The Handicap Manual says:   Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying?...
 C'mon, don't pout.  It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to admit you were wrong.  You do not have to be "purer" than the actual rules to be virtuous.  Interesting contrast between the R&A competition guidelines quoted by Fourputt and the USGA's guidelines.  The USGA guidelines give several examples of when a committee should mark an area GUR when it clearly is NOT temporary.  Examples of such are:  french drains, fire ants, and flowerbeds.  These are all permanent parts of...
 I had no idea.  Thanks for the explanation.
 It is a whole different world with which I have no familiarity.  I've never played on a course that had a cooling fan, temporary OR permanent.  My prior response had mistakenly assumed they were there because of some very unusual situation.  I had no idea they were permanent.
 I'm curious, did the rule sheet say no relief at all or just no relief from line of play?  They are 2 very different things.  If the former then the pro was wrong since they cannot change Rules of Golf.  If the latter, then assuming no local rule was adopted,  he was correct, but IMO it was a bad decision since the fans easily fit the definition of Temporary Immovable Obstruction from the specimen sample local rule in Appendix I:  Therefore they could have made a local...
It seems like a weird situation.  I wonder why the pro in question was so adamant, since his position seem pretty unreasonable as described.  Even the line of play relief should have been available via local rule, since it seems pretty apparent that the fans were temporary - at least I cannot ever remember playing a course that had permanent fans in place.
   It would be really nice if we could disagree without you accusing people of playing fast and loose with the rules.  Or treating us as if we are somehow mentally deficient because we disagree with you.   What do the R&A guidelines say abut ESAs?  Because the USGA pub on holding competitions addresses ESAs directly.  And contains no statements of any kind about what criteria the Committee should use in deciding how to exercise their discretion on how to mark the ESA other...
Due respect but you are not at all addressing the clear language of the local rule and Appendix I.  There is nothing in that rule or anywhere else in the rules that I have seen that supports your position.  I do not see why the USGA would codify a local rule allowing something they consider as not an acceptable practice. Also, why would they specify that the water hazard designation requires that the area otherwise satisfy the water hazard definition yet make no such...
The local rule in Appendix I says (my emphasis added):  So if they designate the ESA as GUR the Committee is completely within its discretion under the local rule and they are NOT playing fast and loose with the rules, they are using an fully authorized local rule and the discretion given to them under the local rule.  Why do you think there is anything wrong with the Committee designating it as GUR when that is explicitly allowed by the local rule?  Why is it the lazy way...
New Posts  All Forums: