Jump to content
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    16
  • views
    6,035

Welcome and First Mistake


Welcome to my blog. I've decided to do something a little bit different from a normal golf blog by focusing a bit more on the Rules of Golf.

The impetus behind this blog is that I volunteered to be the Rules Chairman for my men's club this fall. Now, I am of fairly sound mind, but volunteering to do that is probably a bit crazy. It is fair to ask why I volunteered. Well, I've been interested in the Rules of Golf since I started playing golf seriously. I never really had them introduced to me, so I've been mostly self-taught. They aren't some arbitrary gobbledygook to me - I intuitively understand the reasoning behind most of the rules. Instead of learning as an 8 year old that you can't step on the line of your putt without understanding why, I get why that is a rule. I'm also a lawyer, so the rules do not intimidate me. They are very straightforward compared to what I deal with. I have a book of regulations that is 1003 pages long and contains 10 regulations. This tiny book that is what, 150 pages long, is no big deal in comparison to that. I have, on multiple occasions, been able to read the Rules on the course and figure out what to do quickly enough to not delay play. One time, I found a dead fish on grass within the margin of a water hazard, and wasn't sure what I could do, but I figured it out after quickly reading the rules (bonus points if you can tell me the answer below).

That said, our club is lucky enough to have an experienced and knowledgeable professional rules official in it. He was the former Rules Chairman, and I can lean on him for any help. Which I will likely need, as you'll see in a second.

To prepare for this redoubtable position, I have started to follow the Rules of Golf section here more closely. I have been learning a ton by the rules questions asked in there and finding the answers on my own. I also took a 2 day rules seminar put on by the Colorado Golf Association. That was ... fun. A bit dry, to be honest, but I learned a lot of nuances in the rules. I also affirmed that I had a decent, although not spectacular, handle on the rules already. So, I should be pretty good at this, right?

Well... our club has a biennial (every other year - I had to look that up originally, too) rules requirement. You can fulfill it by taking an online rules quiz (I'll have a post about that later), or be attending 1 of 2 seminars we host during the year. Last weekend was our first seminar. Fortunately, the experienced rules official ran it, so I didn't have to do much besides introduce him and help his explanations when needed. But, as I held myself out as an expert, I had a couple of people ask me questions after the formal presentation was over. One asked me about whether the nearest point of relief from an immovable obstruction could be in a hazard. I said, without consulting the Rules, that it could be in a hazard. Taking relief from an immovable obstruction doesn't guarantee you a good lie or line. Well, I was right about the second sentence, but not about the first. Turns out the nearest point of relief when you're taking relief from an immovable obstruction can't be in a hazard. D'oh. Sent an e-mail, with my figurative tail between my legs, later that day to apologize and correct myself. In my defense, that situation rarely, if ever, occurs at my home course.

So, lesson learned. Read the rules before opining on a nuance like that. Probably better that I learned that lesson when it didn't matter as opposed to when it could affect someone's score.

That's probably enough for me. I'm going to try to update this periodically with tales from rules questions at my club. Please comment away. I welcome all criticism, although I strongly prefer positive.

11 Comments


Recommended Comments

DeadMan

Posted

  On 4/14/2016 at 3:00 PM, Phil McGleno said:

Loose impediment-Do not touch it or move it.

Expand  

Yep. I'll give you 1000 bonus points for that answer.

Mop Bucket

Posted

If the fish was living would it be different?

  • Upvote 1
DeadMan

Posted

  On 4/15/2016 at 5:36 AM, Mop Bucket said:

If the fish was living would it be different?

Expand  

Pretty sure it would then be just an outside agency. So you could wait for it to move out of the hazard, or move it yourself.

Getting this from Decision 23/6.5:

  Quote

Q. What is the status of a snake?

A. A live snake is an outside agency. A dead snake is both an outside agency and a loose impediment. It is possible for an item or person to fall under more than one Definition.

Expand  

But since it's a loose impediment when it's dead, you cannot move it out of a hazard (that's in Rule 13-4).

RandallT

Posted

  On 4/15/2016 at 1:33 PM, DeadMan said:

But since it's a loose impediment when it's dead, you cannot move it out of a hazard (that's in Rule 13-4).

Expand  

Aha, so you can resuscitate it first, then move it!

  • Upvote 1
bkuehn1952

Posted

  On 4/15/2016 at 5:36 AM, Mop Bucket said:

If the fish was living would it be different?

Expand  

A live fish would be considered an outside agency.  My thought is that as such, one would be allowed to move an outside agency interfering with one's stroke or stance.  Before you do that, you may want to get a better educated decision!  ;)

  • Upvote 1
DeadMan

Posted

So in the fish situation, the fish didn't really interfere with the ball at all. It was close, but you could make a swing pretty easily without the fish making a difference. Personally, if I don't absolutely need to, I'm not going to move anything in a hazard (this is assuming my ball is in the hazard). It's just safer that way, and you don't invite the question of doing something wrong. While you are technically allowed to move a beer can out of hazard, why even bother until your ball is out of the hazard. That way nobody will question you.

  • Upvote 2
bkuehn1952

Posted

  On 4/15/2016 at 2:07 PM, DeadMan said:

... While you are technically allowed to move a beer can out of hazard, why even bother until your ball is out of the hazard. That way nobody will question you.

Expand  

Precisely! I have played enough tournament golf to have arrived at the same opinion.

  • Upvote 1
  • Administrator
iacas

Posted

  On 4/15/2016 at 1:53 PM, RandallT said:

Aha, so you can resuscitate it first, then move it!

Expand  

Can you resuscitate a fish without touching it?

  • Upvote 1
Mop Bucket

Posted (edited)

Hahaha! golf is weird smetimes. "Time of death of the fish is 11:23 am, the exact moment it became of loose impediment."

Edited by Mop Bucket
  • Upvote 2
Hardspoon

Posted

This fish is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late fish. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the hazard, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the choir and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-fish.

  • Upvote 1

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Popular Now

  • Blog Entries

  • Posts

    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛🟩⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬛🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,312 6/6* ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 🟨⬜🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟨⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 back in Phew land….
    • You are not wrong. The shaft and the head together both contribute to the performance of the club. I'd also suggest that they contribute in different amounts depending upon whether we are comparing a driver, an iron or a wedge. (We could argue all day about how much is the head and how much is the shaft... and I would enjoy the argument.) Having said that, in order for a youtuber or anyone else for that matter to completely optimize the club and then hit it in comparison to another completely optimized club is all but impossible. Just one of the many reasons why all club tests should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.  Not only that but even in robot testing there are variables that are outside the areas of control. I've personally been lucky enough to witness robot testing first had. It's fascinating how non-repeatable the results can be. Let me elaborate. With an 7 or 8 iron the robot can land balls over and over again in an area the size of a kiddie pool. However, when the testers moved away from a 7 or 8 iron, the results got less and less precise. Interestingly it didn't matter if they went up or down the bag. With the robot hitting short pitches and even chips, relatively, more variation than full short iron shots. Similarly, long drives with the robot created more variation as well. This is without the effects of wind, variations in the surface and texture of where the ball lands etc...  In addition, this doesn't take into account possible bias, either consciously or unconsciously of the tester. The testers I got to witness (these happened to by Taylormade guys, but I'm sure it doesn't matter), confessed that they could influence the results if they wanted to. They could take two clubs and make either of them "win" with robot testing if they wanted to. They made to the point to illustrate that in their job they had to constantly make sure they were fighting bias and/or putting in double checks, but never-the-less when I now read about any testing saying X club is 7 yards longer, I think back to their statement.  So, if it's that difficult to get really good results out of a robot imagine how difficult it is to get quantifiable results out of a human swinging a club.  Here's a fun test to try. Hit your driver 10 times on a launch monitor and gather the data (You can do 20 or 30 swings it doesn't matter). Now group the data into 2 sets, the odd numbered swings and the even numbered swings. Look at your two data sets. I guarantee that one data set will look "better" than the other. Even though, it's the same person swinging the same club on the same day. But if you just happened to be testing a driver against your driver on that day, Even if you gather your data by switching back and forth between the two drivers you may get misleading results. I've done this test a few times in my life and it's interesting to see how the "odd numbered me" or the "even numbered me" always produces different results, sometimes one will win by a large margin.  In summary, I too enjoy watching reviews of the new clubs that come out, especially drivers. But it is information not data. 
    • Wordle 1,312 4/6* ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛🟦🟦🟦 ⬛🟦🟦🟦⬛ 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧  
    • Something I’ve been thinking about. I watch a lot of club tests, retired and get up way too early, and there’s something I think in my opinion might be being done wrong. They might pick several drivers, could be something different, and use the same shaft so things will be equal. In my mind a shaft might be good in one club and not in another. Learned the hard way, had my best ever driver at the time, G410, and kept hearing about how great the G425 MAX was. Since I sometimes have trouble finding senior shafts we traded heads and the 410 shaft never seemed to work out in the 425 head for me. Wasn’t as straight or as long so I have moved on. Don’t think everyone was wrong about the G425, just think that combination maybe didn’t work for me.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...