ay33660

iacas - I think this had been touched on but not addressed specifically (I have read all 4 pages but I may have missed it) and if so I apologize. You stated this in your Post #4. "I like the one we have now: the close of competition. It has a nice blend of the practical (when we hand the trophy over we don't want to have a Steve Harvey moment) with allowing for the actions of everyone through the full 72 holes to affect the final score, because it is a 72-hole competition, not four separate 18-hole competitions." So why not have the players sign the "official card" at the end of the 72nd hole. Until that card is signed, if penalty strokes are applied then it is no different than being notified of a penalty before you sign the card at the end of the round under the current rules. They will still need to sign cards at the end of each round but that is to attests the score of their competitors. I understand that it removes the onus on the players to be vigilant in that in removes the risk of the two stroke penalty for rounds 1 to 3 should an infraction be discover subsequent to the end of the round. I do not think such a rule would work as the DQ option would also not be in play given that there is essentially no penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard. I am sure this has been discussed and there is no obvious solution but ..... - Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 3 goes unnoticed. Discovered in day 4 and leads to 4 stroke penalty. - Brain fart in marking and replacing the ball on 18th hole of day 4 goes unnoticed. Discovered one day after the tournament. No penalty. Final score remains unchanged. - Obviously there is a high likelihood that a different winner would emerge between the two scenarios. Probability an infraction occurring on day and noted on a second day during an event other than a Professional Tour tournament extremely low. I would suggest almost zero given it is unlikely that there would be video evidence for rules committee to refer back to in order to make definitive ruling. Probability that this will occur in a Professional Tour tournament in the future ........ pretty high. BTW - I think the Lexi case had the correct result. No excuses for making a mistake like that she is a professional and she would gone thru the process of marking a ball millions of times before. If they believe so strongly in having the exact pre shot routine why not for marking and replacing a ball.

A guy I used to play with on a semi regular basis at my club actually did what you just did. He quit golf cold turkey. He now spends his time cycling as much as possible. Not sure if he will come back to golf when the cycling craze is over but he also like to fly fish a lot too.

Go get yourself fitted by a good club fitter. Don't use a brand specific fitter rather go to one who can offer you all the brand name shaft combinations with any of the brand heads. Here in Canada I used Modern Golf there are several similar companies in the US. Having the proper shaft and head combination is a big factor in getting distance and consistency. During my fitting the optimal shaft for me increased my ball speed increased by 17 mph without any increase in my club speed. This translated to an average of 15 yards increase in carry distance based on Trackman data. In real life I think the carry increase is more but it is hard to tell because of the roll out. Or maybe I am just drinking the Kool-Aid.

I wonder if the difference is between private clubs created as part of a housing development vs. those that were not. In my area of Vancouver, BC, Canada we do not have any private clubs created as part of a housing development. There are a couple of golf courses that were created as part of a housing development (Morgan Creek and Westwood Plateau) but they were never private. None of the private clubs in my area has gone to public play.

Absolutely there will be bitching and moaning ....... I think this is why sports is so popular. I don't suggest that there is a simple solution. I am merely stating that officiating in sports is never PERFECT and that errors made in officiating is part of the game. So let the players and officials inside the field of play make the call and if it turns out it was wrong well too bad it is part of the game. Of course people with bitch and moan but there will be bitching and moaning either way.

Final game EURO 2016 ........ handball penalty awarded to France instead of Portugal: 107 mins: Koscielny earns a yellow card for handball right on the edge of the box, but the ball actucally hit Eder's hand. Eder then subsequently scores the winning goal. Original call stands ........... that's sports.

Right - perhaps the USGA should have noted this in their in their official statement on the Dustin Johnson ruling and should have added .... while we created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players there is no inherent right to for each competitor to know where they stand in an competition ....... "Upon reflection, we regret the distraction caused by our decision to wait until the end of the round to decide on the ruling. It is normal for rulings based on video evidence to await the end of a round, when the matter can be discussed with the player before the score card is returned. While our focus on getting the ruling correct was appropriate, we created uncertainty about where players stood on the leader board after we informed Dustin on the 12th tee that his actions on the fifth green might lead to a penalty. This created unnecessary ambiguity for Dustin and the other players, as well as spectators on-site, and those watching and listening on television and digital channels. " - USGA statement regarding Dustin Johnson ruling.

I was already aware of that decision but in an earlier reply to me you quoted 34-3/8 so I surmised that it was more appropriate. You stated that by Dustin's remarks he was not aware of the new 18-2 rule and that he gave false or incorrect information to the referee who then made a determination based on that false information. I assumed that you thought 34-3/8 was more appropriate as you would have had to read past 34-3/7 before you got to 34-3/8 so I did not bring up the 34-3/7 decision. Mistakes in officiating will always exist in sports. It is really a part of sports. As much as the USGA wants to get it right in doing so have they caused more harm to the field of competition than perhaps the initial ruling error. In this case the USGA has acknowledged that not applying the penalty to Dustin at the 12th hole created harm to the field of competition as no-one knew exactly where they stood over the last 6 holes relative to the leader. Case closed for me. I just hope someone at the USGA tackles the use of video review and the timing of making a decision. As I had stated earlier when the majority of the rules of golf to which we play by were written the use of video review by either ruling officials or outside agencies (ie arm chair officials) was not contemplated. Players had to make their own ruling as the field of play was too vast and the field of competitors too large to have an official with each player. I don't think another rule has to be added merely acknowledgement of the issues caused by this instance and the shadow that was cast on an otherwise great US Open.

I agree the current rule is better than before. I do not believe that the entire field played under the same conditions though. The television cameras were not trained on every player equally. I am sure that rule 18-2a came into play with other players and they consulted with their playing partner or the referee, obtained a ruling and continued play based on that ruling. Had any or all of those rulings been subject to instant replay I would suggest that at least one or more may have been overruled by the committee. In Johnson case he obtained a ruling and with the agreement of the referee and his fellow competitor continued play based on that ruling. However because of the TV camera trained on every one of his shots the rules committee was able to subsequently review the situation and overrule the referee and his playing competitor and assess a penalty. The playing field is not level for every player. The Rules of Golf did not contemplate the use of instant replay. They exist because the playing field is vast and there cannot be a referee on the spot for every shot and therefore it depends on the integrity of the player to call his own penalty and also to consult with his playing partner. The ability to use instant replay has changed the spirit of that in my opinion. Ruling mistakes will happen. For all these major tournaments a referee is present with every group. Let him makes a ruling then let it stand regardless of what instant replay subsequently shows. This way the entire field is playing under the same conditions. Mistakes will happen and accepting that is part of all sports. The USGA does not need to change any of the current rules they just need to apply Rule 34-2. Would there be this sh*t storm had the USGA simply stated that they applied rule 34-2 and accepted the ruling of the referee. To those arm chair officials that would argue that 18-2a should have applied the USGA could simply state that there was insufficient evidence to overrule the referee.

I think the USGA would say they didn't make a ruling because they didn't have the facts. That the RO didn't get those facts is his fault, and a big screw-up. That DJ misrepresented the facts is his fault, too. I'm not speaking for the USGA, but I don't think 34-2 applies here because of the misrepresented facts. and iacas: You made the argument that 34-2 does not apply because 1) the referee did not have all the facts and 2) because the facts were misrepresented. "I think the USGA would say they didn't make a ruling because they didn't have the facts. That the RO didn't get those facts is his fault, and a big screw-up. That DJ misrepresented the facts is his fault, too. I'm not speaking for the USGA, but I don't think 34-2 applies here because of the misrepresented facts." I am not going to argue whether or not that is true as I do not know whether if this has a bearing on the application of 34-2 however under the decisions of the USGA handbook they do make reference to where a incorrect decision is made by the referee and how to proceed - 34-2/2 Referee Authorizes Player to Infringe a Rule Q.In error, a referee authorized a player to infringe a Rule of Golf. Is the player absolved from penalty in such a case? A.Yes. Under Rule 34-2, a referee's decision is final, whether or not the decision is correct. The referee incorrectly ruled that Johnson did not cause the ball to move and therefore no penalty is applied and he should play the ball in the new position. Even if it is subsequently reviewed by the committee and they are of the view a penalty did occur the committee could have relied on the decision noted in the USGA Handbook that while the referee made the incorrect decision the decision stands and Johnson is not given a penalty stroke.

Not arguing whether the first ruling was correct or not but it seems to me the USGA broke their own rules by not adhering to rule 34-2. 34-2. Referee's Decision If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final. IMHO if the USGA wishes to have an additional layer of oversight in order to get the rulings absolutely correct and therefore err on the side of caution then why have rule 34-2 in place? This is the reason I made the comment that now players are going to not only look for a referee's ruling but to also look for the rules committee's blessing because obviously the USGA does not wish to adhere to it own rule 34-2. IMHO this whole fiasco would have gone away had the USGA simply invoked rule 34-2 and left the ruling as determined by the original referee.

I am not as offended by the application of the rule as I am by the fact the referee can be overruled hours later and after the completion of the round. Mistakes are made by officials in any game or sport. Whether or not the referee made the correct ruling once that ruling is made it should stand. No more second looks. Didn't the rules committee violate it own rules by overruling the referee? 34-2. Referee's Decision If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final. Had Johnson not consulted with a referee and got a ruling then I could see an instance whereby an actual ruling could be made afterwards. In this case Johnson did the right thing and got a ruling therefore it should stand regardless. I am not a rules geek so perhaps someone can explain to me why USGA's own rule 34-2 did not apply here? Does this mean now players not only have to get the referee's ruling but should wait until the rules committee has had a chance to give it their blessing too. Should make for a long round of golf.

Sorry. Spring has arrived in Vancouver. Cherry Blossoms are out.

Not even close to a mid-life crisis. Six or seven years ago I was having some real issues with my irons so within three months I bought a new set of TaylorMade R7 CBG MAX irons then Ping Anser then TaylorMade R9. I still have the R9's in my closet but the R7 and Anser are long gone. Right now I have Mizuno MX-23 and MP-25; TaylorMade R9, Titlieist AP2 714, and Ping G25 in my closet. Along with the irons I have so many drivers, woods and putters I cant' even name them all. I must buy at least 3 or 4 new drivers and at least 2 set of 3 and 5 woods at year. The only thing I have not bought in the last few years are new putters. Currently I probably have at least 7 or 8 pairs of golf shoes. Three full sets of Gortex rain gear. What you bought is far from a mid-life crisis ,,,,,,,,,, it is normal for most golfers.