Whiner

Pre 2019 the classic example, shown at Rules School, was a player at Pebble repairing or replacing when he couldn't see the ball returning from his chip. Clearly no intent there!

Swinging a club with its headcover on is perfectly legal. There are some with zippers which stay on! I've asked USGA.

A few years ago in a breezy British Open a player left a putt within 1-2 feet. Approaching he must have seen the ball osculating as he was fumbling to get his ball marker out when he reached the ball. Too late, the wind/gravity got it and the ball ended up many feet away. Can't recall if he had put on rain pants or wanted to mark to avoid others' lines, but he could have put the putter down and lifted in a blink!

Probably because of the differences regarding which can be repaired, the ROG refer those on the putting green as "ball marks" while those off the green a "pitch-marks". Hyphen only in the pitch-mark.

Watch the pros and tom ams. If the putt is from 6-12 they are at either 9 or 3. Occasionally close enough to sneak in if they can get a read.

Yes, Pelz did this years ago; thousands of putts: www.golf.com/instruction/flag-or-out

20-2c/0.8 Player Takes Relief from an Area of Ground Under Repair; Whether Re-Drop Required if Condition Interferes for Stroke with Club Not Used to Determine "Nearest Point of Relief" Q.A player finds his ball in heavy rough approximately 230 yards from the green. He selects a wedge to play his next shot and finds that his stance touches a line defining an area of ground under repair. He determines the nearest point of relief and drops the ball within one club-length of this point. The ball rolls into a good lie from where he believes he can play a 3-wood for his next stroke. If the player used a wedge for his next stroke he would not have interference from the ground under repair, but adopting a normal stance with the 3-wood, he again touches the ground under repair with his foot. Must the player re-drop his ball under Rule 20-2c? A.No. The player proceeded in accordance with Rule 25-1b by determining his nearest point of relief using the club with which he expected to play his next stroke and he would only be required to re-drop the ball under Rule 20-2c if interference still existed for a stroke with this club - see analogous Decision 20-2c/0.7. As it was expedient for the player to play his next stroke with another club, which resulted in interference from the condition, he would have the option of playing the ball as it lies or proceeding again under Rule 25-1b. Did they explain why the decision uses "a" stroke and "this" club. In rules speak "a" should mean "any" as in "a ball". And "this" (the) as in "drop the ball"?

You may drop in the water hazard if the LR is in effect: Spec LR App IA/2b

The playing alone problem is the first move toward a universal (world wide) hcp. Try posting a none attested score in Australia (or for that matter a score not played in a competition). Do you think video replay of an NBA player with his foot 1 mm on the 3 point line should be allowed? Do you know that the "shot spot" in tennis is only accurate to say 3 mm (or whatever the margin of error is--some out were in and vice versa) These are all accepted as part of the game.

Yes. I should have read more closely the question the decision answers--breaches PRIOR to stroke.

IMHO it is related acts result in two rules being breached--single penalty. R 1-4/12(4) 1. forward press moves ball--18-2 2. Stroke at moving ball--14/5 "in making the judgment whether two acts are related or unrelated, the Committee should consider, among other things, the similarity of the acts, how close to one another they are in terms of time and location and whether there were any intervening events;"

From 34-3/8: " The referee instructs the player to play the ball from its new location without penalty." The decision and DJ incident seem identical with the exception of relationship of committee/referee.