or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"? - Page 8

post #127 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

Hmm, not following your logic. Maybe if I give you mine you can show me where I'm going wrong:

 

- Rounds played for the purpose of posting a handicap must follow the rules of golf.

- The rules of golf state that practice on the course on the same day of a stroke play competition is not allowed.

- A round played for posting a handicap is not stroke play competition, since according to the definition of that in 3-1, such a competition requires competitors, a winner, turning in a scorecard to a committee, etc.

- Therefore it is acceptable to practice on the course the same day of a round played for the purpose of posting a handicap.

 

Here's your problem.  By incorporating the Rules of Golf, which govern competitions, to solo play, the handicap manual requires that solo rounds be played under the rules that apply to competition.   

 

 

This is the most succinct way I think I can say it: The Handicap manual only permits posting of solo rounds played under the rules of golf. The rules of golf establishes the rules of competition.  Therefore, the handicap manual only permits posting of solo rounds played under the rules of competition.  

 

 

I might be wrong about the rules of golf directly applying only to competition, but I don't think so.  Section II is "The Game" and it has three rules; one describing what golf is, one explaining match play, and one explaining stroke play.  The stroke play rules talk about competitors and stroke play competitions exclusively.  

 

 

 

 

Edited to remove horribly misinformed statement.

post #128 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 

But here's the thing: even if the Rules establish how competitions are played, since the handicap manual only permits posting solo scores played by those Rules, then 7-1 does indirectly apply to solo rounds.

 

So there's really no way around it.  Golf is golf.  a2_wink.gif

100% correct.

Anyone who submits scores for handicap and doesn't follow the rules is, by definituon, cheating.

Gimmes and mulligans have no place in golf if your scores are being posted for handicap purposes.

I finsd it strange that so many like to emulate the pros in dress, swing and equipment, but draw the line at scoring, which is what the game is all about.

Companionship, exercise, fun etc. are all better reasons for playing golf than simply scoring low, but none of them stand in the way of scoring properly.

post #129 of 358

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

 

But here's the thing: even if the Rules establish how competitions are played, since the handicap manual only permits posting solo scores played by those Rules, then 7-1 does indirectly apply to solo rounds.

 

So there's really no way around it.  Golf is golf.  a2_wink.gif

100% correct.

Anyone who submits scores for handicap and doesn't follow the rules is, by definituon, cheating.

Gimmes and mulligans have no place in golf if your scores are being posted for handicap purposes.

I finsd it strange that so many like to emulate the pros in dress, swing and equipment, but draw the line at scoring, which is what the game is all about.

Companionship, exercise, fun etc. are all better reasons for playing golf than simply scoring low, but none of them stand in the way of scoring properly.

 

The current topic under discussion is not whether you need to follow the rules to have a valid handicap. It's a question about the interpretation of the rules.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post


This is the most succinct way I think I can say it: The Handicap manual only permits posting of solo rounds played under the rules of golf. The rules of golf establishes the rules of competition.  Therefore, the handicap manual only permits posting of solo rounds played under the rules of competition.  

 

I might be wrong about the rules of golf directly applying only to competition, but I don't think so.  Section II is "The Game" and it has three rules; one describing what golf is, one explaining match play, and one explaining stroke play.  The stroke play rules talk about competitors and stroke play competitions exclusively.  

 

Ok, I get what you're saying now, and I think I agree with it. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

post #130 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
so many like to emulate the pros in dress,

 

no.....not dress

post #131 of 358

Setting up topics for debate and sharing opinions is all fine and dandy, that's why we are here. I'm just not sure I understand the rules debates when they occur.

Again:

A) You follow the rules.
B) You bend the rules; hence you don't follow the rules.

There's no grey area between A and B here really, so I'm not sure why people invest so much thought and energy into trying to develop the dark matter of the Rules of Golf.

You're either playing by the rules, regardless of the type of round (Championship, Tournament, Qualifier, Casual, Etc.) or you are not (Casual, Scramble, other variations of golf such as stablefords, Bingo-Bango-Bongo, etc. - a round where HC is not turned in). I don't get the headache involved in this thread...

post #132 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

Setting up topics for debate and sharing opinions is all fine and dandy, that's why we are here. I'm just not sure I understand the rules debates when they occur.

Again:

A) You follow the rules.
B) You bend the rules; hence you don't follow the rules.

There's no grey area between A and B here really, so I'm not sure why people invest so much thought and energy into trying to develop the dark matter of the Rules of Golf.

You're either playing by the rules, regardless of the type of round (Championship, Tournament, Qualifier, Casual, Etc.) or you are not (Casual, Scramble, other variations of golf such as stablefords, Bingo-Bango-Bongo, etc. - a round where HC is not turned in). I don't get the headache involved in this thread...

 

If you're talking about the last several pages, the topic has been an interpretation of the rules in a case where they are not clear to all. It was never an issue of "Should I play by the rules or not", as you are implying.

post #133 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

If you're talking about the last several pages, the topic has been an interpretation of the rules in a case where they are not clear to all. It was never an issue of "Should I play by the rules or not", as you are implying.

I did not imply that there is an issue at hand with the discussion, nor did I imply that they are interpreted as a moral distinction of "should I play by the rules or not".

I'm saying that the interpretation of the rules in the last few pages are just at a point where people are searching for something that just is not there. I don't see the entertainment value, or interest, in trying to be difficult with the rules.

The rules being discussed are rules that are made very clear and have been understood for a very long time. The ones who don't understand them are clearly the ones that are grasping at straws in their odd interpretation of wording, twisting meanings to conform to their idea, or an idea in general.

This is like debating legal terminology in a well-written contract. It's boring and in the end, everyone knows the meaning behind the words, but we're tugging and pulling on wording as if we're finding some sort of hidden treasure that nobody is aware of.

There's no "Ah-HA!" to be found in the rules. Thus, my take is:  Play by them or don't. There's no other debate or discussion that can be productive in terms of debating what is already written, is my point. I apologize for the confusion in my previous sentiment.

post #134 of 358

When I was the Handicap Chairman, I used to get in arguments with the womens' committee about certain players who they thought were manipulating their handicaps. Certain women scored decidedly better in competition and were taking all the prizes. The problem was that the scores they made in their competitions were not able to be posted, as they did things like sell mulligans to raise money for their pet charity. I told them there was nothing I could do unless they held their competitions under the Rules of Golf. Once they did, the "tournament scores" got the cheaters with no input necessary from the Handicap Committee.

Taking breakfast balls and mulligans are fine as long as you don't intend to post your score. I do it all the time when I am puttering around the golf course late in the day, hitting multiple balls and such.

post #135 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

If you're talking about the last several pages, the topic has been an interpretation of the rules in a case where they are not clear to all. It was never an issue of "Should I play by the rules or not", as you are implying.

I did not imply that there is an issue at hand with the discussion, nor did I imply that they are interpreted as a moral distinction of "should I play by the rules or not".

I'm saying that the interpretation of the rules in the last few pages are just at a point where people are searching for something that just is not there. I don't see the entertainment value, or interest, in trying to be difficult with the rules.

The rules being discussed are rules that are made very clear and have been understood for a very long time. The ones who don't understand them are clearly the ones that are grasping at straws in their odd interpretation of wording, twisting meanings to conform to their idea, or an idea in general.

This is like debating legal terminology in a well-written contract. It's boring and in the end, everyone knows the meaning behind the words, but we're tugging and pulling on wording as if we're finding some sort of hidden treasure that nobody is aware of.

There's no "Ah-HA!" to be found in the rules. Thus, my take is:  Play by them or don't. There's no other debate or discussion that can be productive in terms of debating what is already written, is my point. I apologize for the confusion in my previous sentiment.

 

See, the problem is, one can't really "play by them or don't" if one feels there's a gray area that needs to be clarified.

 

What you call "searching for something that just is not there", "grasping at straws", "odd interpretations", and "twisted meanings", I call an analysis of the existing rules where the wording is not entirely clear.

 

The fact is, the answer is still not cut-and-dried IMO, and what meeting of the minds we do have was not possible until some of us put the time and thought necessary into doing the analysis. If that analysis is"boring" for you, feel free to exercise your right to ignore this thread.

post #136 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

See, the problem is, one can't really "play by them or don't" if one feels there's a gray area that needs to be clarified.

 

What you call "searching for something that just is not there", "grasping at straws", "odd interpretations", and "twisted meanings", I call an analysis of the existing rules where the wording is not entirely clear.

 

The fact is, the answer is still not cut-and-dried IMO, and what meeting of the minds we do have was not possible until some of us put the time and thought necessary into doing the analysis. If that analysis is"boring" for you, feel free to exercise your right to ignore this thread.

I have been doing just that and I will continue to do so moving on. I did feel the need to state the obvious that I am sure many others with an understanding and acceptance for the rules are thinking as well.

Again, analyzing something that requires no analysis and is cut-and-dry and has been stated as so by many reputable members such as Fourputt, David in FL and even Erik, is somewhat a waste of time in my opinion.

I'll respectfully bow out and let you analyze the wheel.

post #137 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

I have been doing just that and I will continue to do so moving on. I did feel the need to state the obvious that I am sure many others with an understanding and acceptance for the rules are thinking as well.

Again, analyzing something that requires no analysis and is cut-and-dry and has been stated as so by many reputable members such as Fourputt, David in FL and even Erik, is somewhat a waste of time in my opinion.

I'll respectfully bow out and let you analyze the wheel.

 

 

Webster's defines a wheel as "a circular frame of hard material that may be solid, partly solid, or spoked and that is capable of turning on an axle."

 

My question would be, does "circular" necessarily mean that the frame must be perfectly "round"? An octagon for example, while having angles, can still be considered generally circular in nature and can be turned on an axle, can't it?

 

I just don't know.

post #138 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

See, the problem is, one can't really "play by them or don't" if one feels there's a gray area that needs to be clarified.

 

What you call "searching for something that just is not there", "grasping at straws", "odd interpretations", and "twisted meanings", I call an analysis of the existing rules where the wording is not entirely clear.

 

The fact is, the answer is still not cut-and-dried IMO, and what meeting of the minds we do have was not possible until some of us put the time and thought necessary into doing the analysis. If that analysis is"boring" for you, feel free to exercise your right to ignore this thread.

I have been doing just that and I will continue to do so moving on. I did feel the need to state the obvious that I am sure many others with an understanding and acceptance for the rules are thinking as well.

Again, analyzing something that requires no analysis and is cut-and-dry and has been stated as so by many reputable members such as Fourputt, David in FL and even Erik, is somewhat a waste of time in my opinion.

I'll respectfully bow out and let you analyze the wheel.

 

You're right, I was such a moron to not see something so obvious. Thanks for adding the "respectfully" though, that makes me feel better.

 

Regardless of how reputable someone is, I'm not likely to accept "Because I said so" as a valid argument. None of those reputable members you mentioned took the trouble to come up with any rationale other than "That's what the rules say", and none refuted my arguments about why I felt the rules said otherwise. It wasn't until dsc123 came along that anyone presented a convincing argument counter to mine.

post #139 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

That answers that.

 

Do you really think the rules of golf use the word "competition" to include casual solo rounds?  I think 3-1 indicates otherwise.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

No, if you play something that's outside the Rules of Golf, you've made up a "new" game. It may resemble golf, but disc golf resembles golf too. There's one line in there, after which is a long grey area, and that line exists between the rules being followed 100% and the first minor rule being modified.

 

We can all still colloquially say "I played golf today" but you're not an idiot - you know what people are basically saying when they say "that's not golf." So I could direct the same sort of indignant attitude back to you if I cared enough - stop acting like you don't know exactly what some people say when they say "that's not golf." You know what they mean. That or you're really that stupid, and I really, really doubt it's the latter.

 

 

 

To start with, I don't think I deserved that tone.  I certainly don't think I have been disrespectful to anyone.  In fact, I think you misunderstood my post.  

 

I had a detailed post explaining why I think Scam3bill is wrong about being able to practice on the course in a non-tournament setting.  Others hadn't convinced him because they were citing rules that weren't on point.  Dave replied with a simplistic response--that's not golf.  Yes, I understand that he meant that the rules apply to solo rounds--that's what he said in the prior sentence.  Dave thinks the rules apply to solo rounds.  I think they only indirectly apply to solo rounds.  The issue is the scope of the rules.  

 

My point about ruling bodies is that they only govern a limited universe.  Countries set laws within their borders.  The NFL sets the Rules for pro football which are different than the rules set by the NCAA for college football.  Its a matter of scope and jurisdiction.  Under my interpretation of the rules, which I explained above, I think the USGA's rules of golf only purport to govern "competitions," as the word is normally used, not solo rounds.  The rules are not global in their application--they apply in competitions in the united states that are somehow associated with the USGA (I do not pretend to know the exact details of this).  Thus the point of view that the rules apply to everything ("that's not golf") is incorrect and simplistic.    

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

That's not relevant. First, they didn't disagree, and second, the PGA is not a rules-making body.

 

This is marginally on topic, but if I were a TV court judge, I'd make a joke about how this line of discussion will be given a very short leash, or something like that.

 

The PGA sets rules for the PGA, no?  Regardless, the sentence holds true without the PGA.  As I explained, it has to do with the scope of the rules.  The R&A sets rules in the UK.  The USGA in the US.  The PGA for the tour.  They each have their limited scope.  

 

Cut me off as you please, but I'll also point out that my post got a thumbs up from golfingdad, who said  "Good point ... expecially the anchored putter analogy."

 

No they don't, as evidenced by the fact that they chose not to dispute the USGA ruling on anchoring.  They set the conditions for their competitions, they invoke any authorized local rules (authorized by the USGA and the R&A), but they don't set aside any rules of golf.  If you think that, then you are seeing something which isn't there.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

That said, I want to play by whatever rules the USGA has in effect for handicap purposes. And 3-1definitely leaves doubt in my mind that *all* rounds are "stroke play competitions", and if they're not then rule 7-1 regarding practice the day of a "stroke play competition" would not apply.

 

But here's the thing: even if the Rules establish how competitions are played, since the handicap manual only permits posting solo scores played by those Rules, then 7-1 does indirectly apply to solo rounds.

 

Hmm, not following your logic. Maybe if I give you mine you can show me where I'm going wrong:

 

- Rounds played for the purpose of posting a handicap must follow the rules of golf.

- The rules of golf state that practice on the course on the same day of a stroke play competition is not allowed.

- A round played for posting a handicap is not stroke play competition, since according to the definition of that in 3-1, such a competition requires competitors, a winner, turning in a scorecard to a committee, etc.

- Therefore it is acceptable to practice on the course the same day of a round played for the purpose of posting a handicap.

 

 

That has to be some of the most incomplete, illogical chain of logic I've ever seen.  How in the hell do you draw that conclusion from those statements.  I don't even buy your third point.  It is quite possible to compete against the course, or against yourself seeking to better your own personal best, in which case that earlier you is your fellow competitor.  Competition doesn't automatically mean an organized tournament.  And none of it leads to an allowance for practicing on the course, before or during the round.  

post #140 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

No they don't, as evidenced by the fact that they chose not to dispute the USGA ruling on anchoring.  They set the conditions for their competitions, they invoke any authorized local rules (authorized by the USGA and the R&A), but they don't set aside any rules of golf.  If you think that, then you are seeing something which isn't there.


You think they didn't split because they can't?


I'd be more interested to know what you think about my interpretation of "competition"
post #141 of 358

OK, I think we've established that the following should occur upon hearing the term "breakfast ball":

 

1) Locate the lowlife who uttered those vile words and approach him;

 

2) Grab his score card, rip it in half, throw it to the ground, stamp on it, and spit on it;

 

3) Pull out your glove, slap the heinous miscreant twice across the face;

 

4)  Take off your shirt and show him where on your torso you have the applicable Rule of Golf tatooed, then wait for an apology to the honor and tradition of the holy game;

 

5) If no apology is forthcoming, grab his driver, break it briskly across your knee.

 

6)  If the reprobate continues to fail to make amends for this affront to all of those who, across the centuries, have held this game sacred, continue to break his clubs until he is no longer able to engage in the striking of golf balls with metal heads at the end of steel or graphite sticks (NOTE:  This is NOT the game of golf - this bastard was playing something else entirely, maybe billiards or croquet or something like that).

 

Then .....

 

7) Pull out your wallet, walk him to the pro shop and ask if anything they have in stock will do, after he explains that what he actually said was "Breakfast ball?  What's that?  We always just play whatever ball we hit."

post #142 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

No they don't, as evidenced by the fact that they chose not to dispute the USGA ruling on anchoring.  They set the conditions for their competitions, they invoke any authorized local rules (authorized by the USGA and the R&A), but they don't set aside any rules of golf.  If you think that, then you are seeing something which isn't there.


You think they didn't split because they can't?


I'd be more interested to know what you think about my interpretation of "competition"

 

I posted my own right above your last post.  I said:

 

 

Quote:
It is quite possible to compete against the course, or against yourself seeking to better your own personal best, in which case that earlier you are your own fellow competitor.  Competition doesn't automatically mean an organized tournament.  And none of it leads to an allowance for practicing on the course, before or during the round.
 

 

You are essentially competing if you set a goal for the round.  That goal can be quite lofty, such as first place in a tournament, or it can be pedestrian, like trying to finish with fewer than 36 putts, simply to play by the rules for handicap reporting.  In any case you need a standard to play to in order to measure this round against any previous round, and the only real standard a golfer has is the rule book.  A goal has no meaning if the standard changes from round to round depending on a whim.

post #143 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

That said, I want to play by whatever rules the USGA has in effect for handicap purposes. And 3-1definitely leaves doubt in my mind that *all* rounds are "stroke play competitions", and if they're not then rule 7-1 regarding practice the day of a "stroke play competition" would not apply.

 

But here's the thing: even if the Rules establish how competitions are played, since the handicap manual only permits posting solo scores played by those Rules, then 7-1 does indirectly apply to solo rounds.

 

Hmm, not following your logic. Maybe if I give you mine you can show me where I'm going wrong:

 

- Rounds played for the purpose of posting a handicap must follow the rules of golf.

- The rules of golf state that practice on the course on the same day of a stroke play competition is not allowed.

- A round played for posting a handicap is not stroke play competition, since according to the definition of that in 3-1, such a competition requires competitors, a winner, turning in a scorecard to a committee, etc.

- Therefore it is acceptable to practice on the course the same day of a round played for the purpose of posting a handicap.

 

 

That has to be some of the most incomplete, illogical chain of logic I've ever seen.  How in the hell do you draw that conclusion from those statements.  I don't even buy your third point.  It is quite possible to compete against the course, or against yourself seeking to better your own personal best, in which case that earlier you is your fellow competitor.  Competition doesn't automatically mean an organized tournament.  And none of it leads to an allowance for practicing on the course, before or during the round.

 

Since at least one other person followed it just fine, I think the problem is in your comprehension, not with my logic chain.

 

And yeah, not buying the 3rd point is exactly why you've never agreed with me, and is where the logic breaks down, as you see it. I get that. 

 

And yeah, I get that you don't think that "stroke play competition" automatically means an organized tournament.  I thought it did, originally based on an assumption, and later based on Rule 3-1, but now my opinion has been swayed (by rational arguments, not by simply quoting a rule that doesn't make it clear).

 

I wish you (and some others) would think about bringing a little more calmness and civility to the table.

post #144 of 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

OK, I think we've established that the following should occur upon hearing the term "breakfast ball":

 

1) Locate the lowlife who uttered those vile words and approach him;

 

2) Grab his score card, rip it in half, throw it to the ground, stamp on it, and spit on it;

 

3) Pull out your glove, slap the heinous miscreant twice across the face;

 

4)  Take off your shirt and show him where on your torso you have the applicable Rule of Golf tatooed, then wait for an apology to the honor and tradition of the holy game;

 

5) If no apology is forthcoming, grab his driver, break it briskly across your knee.

 

6)  If the reprobate continues to fail to make amends for this affront to all of those who, across the centuries, have held this game sacred, continue to break his clubs until he is no longer able to engage in the striking of golf balls with metal heads at the end of steel or graphite sticks (NOTE:  This is NOT the game of golf - this bastard was playing something else entirely, maybe billiards or croquet or something like that).

 

Then .....

 

7) Pull out your wallet, walk him to the pro shop and ask if anything they have in stock will do, after he explains that what he actually said was "Breakfast ball?  What's that?  We always just play whatever ball we hit."

 

HAHA, throw it down man :p

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is your opinion on the "Breakfast Ball"?