Originally Posted by newtogolf
Correct me if I'm wrong, but UK handicap only applies scores from tournament play and Rulesman stated that no course would impose such a local rule during tournament play. If Rulesman is correct then anyone playing under such a rule at a muni in Scotland was only playing a practice round and the rule allowing a golfer to move their ball from a divot would be no different than if they permitted foot wedges and mulligans too.
If they have to change their rules for a tournament then it shows an awareness that they aren't playing under proper rules the rest of the time. It puts it more into the category of those who would say, "OK, it is a tournament, no mulligans."
Originally Posted by birlyshirly
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're quite pigheaded in your unwillingness to accept the facts of what was happening on the ground in a country of which you have evidently limited experience.
I know this states that divot relief contravenes Rule 13.1, but it's also described as a "change" (ie from previous practice) and the authority of the Committee to make the local rule is "withdrawn" (not simply invalid). And of course, the Decision only came into effect on 1 Jan 2010 - so how anyone can argue that a prospective Decision retrospectively invalidated handicaps is beyond logic.
What the devil does what some article says have anything to do with anything? Are we going to accept what a journalist says about the recent ballmoving decision if they get it wrong,as they most surely will? Are we going to believe all of the articles that said Tiger was not DQed because of Decision 33-7/4.5 when the Masters Committee made it clear that it was a straight 33-7 waiver of DQ based on precedents that had been around for years? Next thing you will be quoting TV commentators on rules issues.
It isn't what the article says that counts it is what the decision says, which is:
Q.May a Committee make a Local Rule providing relief without penalty from divot holes or repaired divot holes (e.g., holes that have been filled with sand and/or seed mix)?
A.No. Such a Local Rule would modify Rule 13-1 and is not authorized.
Nowhere in the decision does it give the slightest hint that this is a change of any kind. It doesn't say that the local rule is no longer authorized, it ways they are not authorized. As in never were and never will be authorized. It is making clear what anyone should have known at the time.
And let's see what the rules have to say about local rules:
All defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in the Definitions section.
As provided in Rule 33-8a, the Committee may make and publish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy established in this Appendix. In addition, detailed information regarding acceptable and prohibited Local Rules is provided in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” under Rule 33-8 and in “How to Conduct a Competition.”
If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the USGA must be obtained.
Of course in Scotland, USGA in the final clause would be replaced with R&A. But the point is the same. Local Rules are not some free for all, they have to be consistent with the appendix and be authorized by a ruling body. Unless you can show us where the R&A ever authorized that local rule then you are flat out wrong, as were those clubs that adopted such a procedure (which I won't dignify with calling a rule)
If some Scottish courses were allowing this then they were a bunch of wusses not worthy of the same of golfer, IMO. Old Tom must have been turning over in his grave when they were doing this.