Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
saevel25

Embedded Ball

6 posts in this topic

Off topic and easy to answer for yourself.

25-2. Embedded Ball

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown areathrough the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the coursethrough the green. “Closely mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

Simple suggestion for you @MEfree - post about golf, not about golf rules. You've burned too many bridges and the patience of too many on that.

I know the rule says, "Closely Mown Area". What if the ball is technically located in the rough, but the rough is sparce and the ball is clearly embedded in its own pitch mark in the side of a bank? The course we played today, the rough was less than a ball width in height. My ball bounced on the cart path really high, then hit a soft area in bank. Due to the rain, the ball was embedded in it's own pitch mark, clearly visible. Just curious if this is considered an embedded ball, and how much weight the line "Closely Mown Area" means?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Off topic and easy to answer for yourself.

25-2. Embedded Ball

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown areathrough the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the coursethrough the green. “Closely mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

Simple suggestion for you @MEfree - post about golf, not about golf rules. You've burned too many bridges and the patience of too many on that.

I know the rule says, "Closely Mown Area". What if the ball is technically located in the rough, but the rough is sparce and the ball is clearly embedded in its own pitch mark in the side of a bank? The course we played today, the rough was less than a ball width in height. My ball bounced on the cart path really high, then hit a soft area in bank. Due to the rain, the ball was embedded in it's own pitch mark, clearly visible. Just curious if this is considered an embedded ball, and how much weight the line "Closely Mown Area" means?

You might check as to whether the local rule extending relief through the green is in effect.  If the conditions are wet enough, that could be reasonable.  After all, the PGA Tour has that local rule in effect as a standard item on their hard card.

I think it just makes sense.  This is probably the only rule that I really contest.  Why did they ever write a rule that specifies a part of the course (fairway) which is undefined in the rules otherwise?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I know the rule says, "Closely Mown Area". What if the ball is technically located in the rough, but the rough is sparce and the ball is clearly embedded in its own pitch mark in the side of a bank? The course we played today, the rough was less than a ball width in height. My ball bounced on the cart path really high, then hit a soft area in bank. Due to the rain, the ball was embedded in it's own pitch mark, clearly visible. Just curious if this is considered an embedded ball, and how much weight the line "Closely Mown Area" means?


"Closely mown area" carries a lot of weight.  You would get relief under Rule 25-2 for a ball embedded in a closely mown area, but would not get relief for an embedded ball elsewhere, unless the local Rule extending this to through the green was in place at the course you were playing.  The area needs to "closely mown", ie, cut to fairway height or less.  Just because it is sparse doesn't infer that it was mown that short.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might check as to whether the local rule extending relief through the green is in effect.  If the conditions are wet enough, that could be reasonable.  After all, the PGA Tour has that local rule in effect as a standard item on their hard card.

I think it just makes sense.  This is probably the only rule that I really contest.  Why did they ever write a rule that specifies a part of the course (fairway) which is undefined in the rules otherwise?

From what I understand, this arrangement is a compromise between the USGA and R&A; that allows the Rule book to be the same world-wide.  The R&A; is not willing to extend it to through the green because of their many links golf courses.  This is also the reason that the recommended local Rule denies relief for a ball embedded in sand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You might check as to whether the local rule extending relief through the green is in effect.  If the conditions are wet enough, that could be reasonable.  After all, the PGA Tour has that local rule in effect as a standard item on their hard card.

I think it just makes sense.  This is probably the only rule that I really contest.  Why did they ever write a rule that specifies a part of the course (fairway) which is undefined in the rules otherwise?

From what I understand, this arrangement is a compromise between the USGA and R&A; that allows the Rule book to be the same world-wide.  The R&A; is not willing to extend it to through the green because of their many links golf courses.  This is also the reason that the recommended local Rule denies relief for a ball embedded in sand.

I figured that was probably the case.  I think the same sort of compromise might have been reached for electronic measuring devices too.  The extent to which they are allowed worldwide would seem to be a strong vote for reversing the wording by stating that they are authorized unless prohibited by local rule - much like the practice between holes rule.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

From what I understand, this arrangement is a compromise between the USGA and R&A; that allows the Rule book to be the same world-wide.  The R&A; is not willing to extend it to through the green because of their many links golf courses.  This is also the reason that the recommended local Rule denies relief for a ball embedded in sand.

This is correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • My Swing (PumaAttack)
      Dude, he like, literally, answered some of the questions you're asking in this post in the post you quoted. You are right about one thing, though.  If you're already working with an instructor, you shouldn't be muddying the waters with advice from other sources.  In fact, Erik and Mike make points to not offer advice when they know that, so you should have just mentioned that from the start.
    • My Swing (PumaAttack)
      @mvmac @iacas I have a friend who is also on Evolvr and got feedback today from his coach that his swing is looking great and has no changes at this time. I looked at his swing.  He goes from really shallow at A3 and then slightly steeper at a5.  Why is that ok for him and not for me?  Seems a little hypocritical, eh?
    • 2016 DEAN & DELUCA Invitational
      Still a shot for the top 3 players in the world to all have won the last tournament they played at the same moment in time, which I don't believe has ever happened in the history of the game.  #pgatourhasneverbeenbetter    Ok, that hash tag was a little douchy, but c'mon, this shit is good.
    • Lowest score you've seen?
      Lowest ive ever witnessed is 71 twice by me.Thats saying something considering I play in tournys with very good players.My 71s were not in tourny conditions though.
    • What would a PGA Tour player shoot at your home course?
      But because they play on courses that are considered quite difficult compared to the average home course, wouldn't their up & down % be expected to increase due to having closer misses on average - particularly with slower greens to hold approaches? The comment above is not to discount this, but only emphasize how the two go together. If you apply a fantastic long game on a shorter course on average they will have an easier time being more consistent and hitting the ball closer to the pin on average and therefore making more putts. Or do you think they would have the same expected proximity on one of our home courses as they would on the tougher tour courses and setups? I get you on the tournament prep being very different to hitting a course blind, but to some extent the OP is comparing how we play on our home courses day-in, day-out vs. the tour pros moving from place to place. How would we score visiting a course blind relative to our home course where most of the scores are posted and we are very familiar with the layout and greens. Granted pros make it a point to know this stuff with yardage books and memory. Still switching between venues and conditions rather suddenly vs. gradual changes we would tend to experience on a home course must add some difficulty. I came across a good study that analyzed all PGA tournament scores for 2007 including field average adjustments. He had the unadjusted scoring average that year as 70.704. If you figure the average course setup is ~ CR 75 and add one stroke for 'tournament conditions' (and added difficulty of Major setups) then that was about 5.3 strokes below average rating. So relative to a Course Rating (slope should not matter to a pro), and assuming a standard normal distribution, 95% of the scores should range between -6.7 and -3.9 below the rating. However, his analysis detected two interesting features, the curve (with a ton of samples) is approximately symmetric with a ~ .4 skewness. This right skew means the most frequently expected result (the mode) is actually slightly lower than the mean. So that implies that even on tour setups the lower than average scores are expected just a bit more frequently (the left tail and shoulder are slightly thicker and probability for scores lower than the mode slightly higher.). Here's an approximation of what the distribution would look like relative to strokes below the CR. In comparing courses with higher average scores (like the U.S. Open) the study found that the standard deviation of scores increased. The 'tougher test' created more of a separation between the players. Also the players whose scores tended to skew left were poorer players on average in terms of results. They averaged a relatively high score, but they could go really low sometimes. The relevance this has to the thread is that on the easier home courses that most of us tend to play, the tour players would be more bunched in their expected scores with higher probabilities around the mean of -5.3 relative to the CR and possibly more toward the low side with the left-skewing, less-consistent scorers reducing the size of the right tail and extending the left while holding the 'field average' the same. It could skew the distribution toward lower expected score (though the most frequently expected value would still be around the mode). But what would you expect as a total spread for the average scratch population? You agree that with the average population of golfers by handicap there's a decrease in score variability with increasing skill versus the average population at each handicap level having the same average scoring distribution, yes? IMO, the answer to the OP greatly depends on the CR. On my course from the tips, they'd be expected to shoot under 65 over 50% of the time. On a CR of 72, I'd expect  below 67 over 50% of the time. At Oakmont (in non-Open setup), under 73 over 50% of the time. And that would be without accounting for a possible 'going low' effect from the typically easier home course setups we face (not including Oakmont there. They would face some hazards you don't find on tour either - lost balls could be an issue for some. I'm not sure I agree that they'd expect to putt worse. At the least because I would expect their proximity to the hole to increase on all shots due to the typically shorter length (shorter irons on average into each hole) along with relatively slower, softer greens.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bigtosh90
      bigtosh90
      (26 years old)
    2. dopplegvnger
      dopplegvnger
      (24 years old)
    3. Frank62
      Frank62
      (54 years old)
  • Blog Entries