or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sacm3bill

I voted "always have agreed with it", but I could be swayed.   A question for those who are against: Consider a case like Tiger's this weekend, only instead of the ball moving a tiny bit, it moved a couple inches. I.e., in such a way that there can be no doubt that either the player is lying about it having moved, or honestly was not watching the ball when it did. But the camera still caught it. And the player says "No, it didn't move". How would you rule? Point being,...
 Yeah, but that view is: "Since we can't police every player, no player should be accountable for any rules infractions".  I think that's worse than the current situation, where some players are a bit more in the spotlight than others. After all, they know they're in the spotlight, so should know to be more careful. And all they need to do is know the rules and play by them, and we'd never even hear about rules violations. Plus, there are perks to being in the spotlight...
 Ah, gotcha. Then I'd say we're in agreement for the most part, the exception being I think any estimation is going to be more accurate if you actually play a ball. But I now understand the objection that you and Fourputt have to that.
 Other sports have referees and judges constantly watching all the action. Professional golf tournaments have something like 1 rules official every 3 holes. Maybe you'd prefer that rules violations go unnoticed, but I guarantee the rest of the field would not be cool with that.
 What's the "This" that you're agreeing with? I'm confused because what you quoted me saying doesn't seem to relate to what you wrote. (There's nothing about "randomly dropping a ball" or "finishing the hole" in what you quoted.)
 Agreed, but not sure what point you're making. In the scenario that we've been discussing in this thread (lost tee shot with no provisional, and you don't go back to the tee), my contention is that not playing out the hole at that point is the equivalent of picking up and putting the ball in your pocket. If you agree with that, then it seems you've changed your stance. If you don't agree with that, then I'm still not sure why.  How did an illegal drop creep into this...
 I don't see how you can state "the manual doesn't contemplate picking up after the tee shot".  Just because it doesn't happen to use that as an example doesn't mean it wasn't contemplated. And you can't use the argument that "not playing your ball from tee to hole is not following the principle of the rules", because you're not playing the ball from tee to hole when you concede putts, yet it's universally accepted to count that as an unfinished hole, not a hole "not...
 I would disagree that it's based on what's published. What's published describes how to proceed for an "unplayed" hole vs "unfinished or not played under the principles of golf" hole.  The single response we have from the USGA hotline is an interpretation of what "unplayed" means.  Most if not all people, if they had no knowledge of that response, would logically assume that once you've made a stroke at the ball on the tee, you've started the hole and it would therefore...
 No, that's not what Fourputt was saying, or would say. We were talking about a specific scenario where you had a lost ball off the tee with no provisional, and decided to pick up instead of going back to the tee.  Fourputt considers that an unplayed hole (based on a USGA response). I'm sure Fourputt, the USGA, and everyone else considers a gimme putt an unfinished hole. That being said, one of the many problems with that position is determining at what point a hole goes...
 Oops, just noticed I misspoke there and it's too late to edit the original. What I meant to say was, "I don't see how not taking par plus on a hole where you've already jacked a ball or two out of bounds is sandbagging..."
New Posts  All Forums: