or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by rogolf

As noted previously, Rule 16-1a gives many instances where you are permitted to touch the line of putt, - in removing loose impediments - addressing the ball in front of the ball - measuring - lifting or replacing a ball - pressing down a ball marker - in repairing old hole plugs and ball marks on the putting green - removing movable obstructions   Rule 16-1c says that the player may repair ball marks on the putting green whether or not his ball lies on the...
Yes, it is a line of play.  However, the Rules permit repair of ball marks that are on the green at any time, and this includes those ball marks on the line of play or line of putt.  The permission to repair damage to the putting green is clearly stated in Rule 13-2, and 13-2 refers to Rule 16-1.
When I'm doing set up, which includes both hole location and tee location, I'm very aware of where the tees are set with respect to hole location.  It may not make much difference on a very long par five, but it certainly does on shorter par fours and always on par threes.  If I set up a potentially drivable par 4, I will always make it a very tough hole location - typically short and just over a bunker or near a drop off (if you really want to drive low handicappers nuts,...
And permitted by the Rules of golf, see Decision 27/20.  Note that the Decision clearly states that without such a local Rule, the ball is in bounds.
No, not the same circumstances.
I agree that could be an issue.  In such a competition, it would be very worthwhile to ensure that all of the tee markers are placed at their respective stone markers or within a couple paces thereof.  Imo, tournament set ups should not be left to the greens crew unless they have been provided specific instructions by the Committee.  Anything that goes wrong is the fault of the organizing Committee, not the greens crew.
AFAIK, the course ratings are done ignoring any non-conforming local Rules (such as the one above regarding bunkers).If you really want to do research, visit     http://www.popeofslope.com/index.html Also, in the area where I am (Pacific Northwest), the state and provincial associations hold annual meetings of the course raters to ensure there is consistency in rating amongst the group. Perhaps an explanation for the change in rating could be obtained from the association...
This isn't nickel and dime stuff!  I was always taught that two things not the same are different - and that's the case here - handicaps and course ratings are not the same as nickels and dimes.  There's a lot more significance to handicaps than a three cent difference in change.  I'm old enough to remember when getting change from a nickel was significant - nobody would ever round $0.03 up to $0.05 when I was growing up.  I will stay with the USGA perspective, tenths of...
I've stated my opinions, and am happy to continue with them.  If you consider that a difference of 0.3 in course rating isn't significant, why doesn't the USGA just give ratings to the nearest 0.5, ie, never have a course rating other than 69.5, 70.0, 70.5 etc?  Maybe they do the number to the nearest tenth of a stroke because they consider a tenth to be significant?
Yes, I have also rated courses using the USGA system, and, imo, 90 yards short is significant.  It can be equalized by being 90 yards long the next day, but do courses really keep track of such settings?  I doubt it very much.  It's very frustrating when the white tees (example only) are consistently set up short, often in a foolhardy attempt to improve pace of play (people are responsible for slow play, course set up won't improve it to any great extent).  Those who play...
New Posts  All Forums: