Suffice to say, he does not like the WHS, and he wrote an article expressing why:  https://www.popeofslope.com/world-handicap-system.html.

The problem? His article… well, it's bad. Here is a brief (for me!) exploration of that article. Part 1 includes the bulk of his point, right up until the section labeled "The Par Pitfall," here:

Quote

In an effort to create a process that every golf association in the world can accept (One Size Fits All concept), the USGA has downgraded the handicap system in the United States.

The handicapping system has seen almost no changes in the U.S. It's the rest of the world where they've seen the biggest changes.

In the U.S., ESC was replaced by NDB, we have soft and hard caps, and we use 8/20 instead of 10/20 at 96%. Those are the only real changes.

Dean will spend most of the rest of the time talking about par, but — and this cannot be stressed enough — the par is irrelevant. Its role in determining your playing or course handicap does three things only:

• It makes the score you have to shoot to "play to your handicap" make a lot more sense.
• It "bakes in" the changes players should have made but rarely did when playing from different tees.
• Through NDB, it defines the holes on which you can take a triple (or which you can take a gross bogey if you're on the + side of scratch).

The calculation of your differential at the end is completely unaffected and does not involve par. Dean will spend a good amount of the time in this article talking about how par is "less precise" than the rating and slope, but he seems to miss the two points here:

• Par is an integer. If it helps him to think of it as 72.000000 or something, by all means, Dean…
• Par is used only to adjust another whole number: the strokes a player gets on the course. We don't give 10.4 strokes — a 10.4 index player might get 13, 10, 8, or whatever number of whole-number strokes.

Quote

A par handicap results when par is part of the calculation that creates a Playing Handicap or Course Handicap.

The problem with this type of statement is that the "par handicap" could be "7" or "13" or "88" and except for affecting NDB, players competing against each other would have the same difference (except they'd still need to adjust for playing from different tees).

Let's say a 10.4 and a 14.7 are playing a 71.5/127 course. Par is 72.

(10.4 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 72 = 11.2 -> 11 strokes
(14.7 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 72 = 16.0 -> 16 strokes -> this player gets 5 strokes

Instead of 72, plug in 23 because it's your favorite number:

(10.4 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 23 = 60.2 -> 60 strokes
(14.7 * 127/113) + 71.5 - 23 = 65.0 -> 65 strokes -> this player gets 5 strokes

They still get the strokes they deserve (5), but we've lost the meaning as players now get 60 strokes off a 10 handicap.

Remove the course rating and… you're back at the same problem as we've had where players weren't doing the calculation properly, and we lose the first benefit of "playing to your handicap". An example of that, with a 12.3 index player playing on a 68.7/123 rated par 72 course.

Properly: (12.3 * 123/113) + 68.7 - 72 = 10.1 -> 10 strokes

Improperly: 12.3 * 123/113 = 13.4 -> 13 strokes

If the player plays a "net even par" round of golf, he'll shoot 82 and 85. Here's why this makes sense:

WHS: (82 - 68.7) * 113 / 123 = 12.2 differential
Prior: (85 - 68.7) * 113 / 123 = 14.97 -> 15.0 differential

The player "played to his handicap" with a net even par round in shooting the 82, which aligns with getting ten strokes, not 13.

This makes way more sense and is in fact an improvement over the prior system for two of the three reasons listed above:

• It more closely aligns the index and the score you have to shoot to "shoot your handicap"
• It bakes in players playing from different tees.

Quote

As you know, par was not a factor in the American system of handicap calculation, nor need it have been. One's handicap index was adjusted not by par but by course rating to create a playing handicap, or what we continue to call a Course Handicap. A course's rating, not its par, is what's important.

Par is not a factor in determining the differential in the WHS system, only the playing handicap. The only way it affects the differential is that it can award a triple bogey on a few more holes (or a gross bogey max to a few + handicappers playing shorter tees) in determining NDB. You can completely ignore the WHS system of calculating your playing handicap and your differentials — the calculation of which does not use par - is going to be almost exactly the same (again, differing only when you tripled a hole on which you wouldn't have gotten NDB but now do because you didn't do the subtraction part of the WHS course/playing handicap calculation).

Quote

Why was par added to the handicap calculation then? Because it's already part of handicap systems in some other countries.

Or maybe it was because of the other three reasons listed above. Which were the reasons given to me back in 2017 and 2018 when I talked with some of the people responsible for helping to create the WHS. If the ease of adoption by other countries and regions, then that's a fourth reason. But, I didn't really hear much about it prior to the WHS being instituted.

Quote

Because points are used, this formula added a step beyond the American calculation (Handicap Index times Slope Rating divided by 113). In Stableford-based systems, a final step is added: add Course Rating minus par to make it easier for those players to compare their performance to par scores.

A similar step was also required when players played from different tees, yet this was frequently forgotten. Players used to playing the blue tees would move up to the whites and expect to keep their 13 strokes, and be dismayed and sometimes even angered and argumentative that they would only get 10.

Quote

Then comes rounding off, which introduces other errors, not only in the round-off but often in "over-spreading" of the resulting handicaps.

This literally makes no sense. There's no more or less rounding than in previous versions. The output of "HI * Slope/113" typically produced a decimal number, the output of "HI * Slope/113 + CR - Par" also produces a decimal number, and the output of "Score * 113/Slope" (which is unchanged) also produces a decimal number. Each are rounded just as they were before.

Quote

In short, an approximation is approximated again, making it less reliable mathematically.

No, Dean is way off base here. Even if you accept that "par is an approximation" (of course difficulty), it's not used as he suggests. A player playing a par-72 that's rated 75 will get more COURSE handicap strokes than a player playing a par-72 that's rated 67, but that makes sense. At the end of the round, their score is processed using the same old formula to get their differential as always.

Quote

The adjustment for the difference in Course Rating when competing from different tees (previously called Section 3-5 in the handicap manual) has gone away - which is unfortunate because the difference in Course Rating is the only exact way to make score comparisons-- and now is supposedly "built-in" to the new par-based formula.

This is about where I start to wonder and worry about Dean's mental faculties at his nearly 80 years of age. It hasn't "gone away" - it's been built-in as he says, and I think it's fairly obvious that this is true.

Quote

But what's really built in is a wider margin of error. What does the Course Rating minus Par adjustment really represent? It is the error of Par as a "descriptor" of playing difficulty.

No it is not. It is what I've said above, which is what the USGA and R&A have said it is.

Quote

Course Rating is universally accepted as the most accurate measure of relative difficulty for the Scratch golfer and the Course Rating minus Par is the magnitude of the Par's error measured against that accurate value.

I agree that the course rating is the "most accurate measure of the relative difficulty for the scratch golfer" (I mean, it's almost exactly the defeinition), and slope determines the relative difficulty between two levels of player. So, which of these formulas incorporates BOTH the CR and the Slope in determining a player's course handicap:

a. (HI * Slope/113) + CR - Par
b. (HI * Slope/113)

Clearly A incorporates "the most accurate measure of the relative difficulty" (as well as the measure of the relative difficulty). Dean's favored formula did NOT include "the most accurate measure of the relative difficulty for the scratch golfer". A scratch golfer under Dean's preferred method could shoot an even par round of 72 and see a differential that ranged from +2.7 (75.4/140) to 5.5 (66.3/118) or something. Under the WHS, if they shoot net par, they're going to end up with about a 0.0 differential.

Quote

So, the par handicap is the true handicap measured against the most accurate value corrected for the error inherent in the least accurate value — par.

No. Again, you could subtract any integer from the Course Rating (which again the WHS ADDS to the calculation in course/playing handicap that the older system did not) and get the same relative course handicaps for all players. Using par just helps it make the most sense to actual golfers. It's an integer… as are the scores we shoot and the pars of the holes we play.

Quote

But USGA was intent on jumping right into the change on January 1 declaring that it would only impact American golfers by less than a stroke and it would be easier for golfers to equate their scores to par.

The addition of the "CR - Par" has almost no effect on a player's differential. Again, the only affect it would have is when NDB is applied, because there may be a few holes where they'd get a stroke that they do not. And even then, it requires the player to card a triple on that specific hole, and be among their 8 out of 20 counting scores, AND even then if it happens once a round in ALL of the eight rounds, it's about 1 stroke on their index (probably a bit less given that most slopes are > 113).

This has nothing to do with "jumping in" and everything to do with the foundational reasons for adding (CR - Par). Dean sees it as "adding par" when he would more accurately see it as adding the Course Rating!

Quote

Using the best 8 of 20 scores (against the old 96% of 10 of 20) already tends to lower handicaps…

Small point of order: this was not shown to be accurate. The 96% applied to all 10 scores almost perfectly offset the dropping of two middle scores. Some players indexes went up a little. Some went down a little. The net change was almost exactly 0.

Quote

What golfers will know is that, in most cases, their course handicap has been reduced if their normal tees have a Course Rating under par.

Yes, that's how math works. The change makes MORE sense, again, as a player shooting net par under the WHS has basically "shot their handicap". Shoot below net par and your handicap will likely go down. Shoot above it and it may go up a little (less chance of this than shooting under lowering it, though, of course).

Quote

Players who always play from the same tees at their club will see another inconsistency. If, for example, the Course Rating is 70.5 and Par is 71, the calculation of Course Rating Minus Par (.5) means, based on the way the tables are created, that half the players will have a Course Handicap one lower than they had before the new system and half will not!

So? Half of the players who play a 72.5/72-par course will see their Course Handicap one higher than they had before the system and half will not!

Also and again, players who play a course rated 68.7 par-72 will all see their course handicaps drop several strokes. That's just math, and the boundaries of rounding. Dean chose a 0.5 marker, but the same math is true at any level, because the HI already has a decimal, and the Slope/113 multiplier also tends to produce decimals. So, someone who previously had a 10.5 to 10.9 index will still be an 11, while the 10.0s to 10.4s will go up to 11s. But on another course where the decimals work out to 0.3 and 0.2… the same math applies. And on a course where the decimals work out to 0.8… players half of the players will get an "extra" stroke and half will not.

This is just rounding. It's always been a part of the WHS. The point at which rounding occurs might move slightly (depending on the course and index in question) for half of the situations, but if you have a 10.0 and an 11.5… or a 10.5 and an 12.0… half of the time the higher handicapper will get the "extra" stroke, and half the time the lower handicapper will get the "extra" stroke.

This is just how rounding works.

Quote

The United States isn't a predominantly Stableford playing country. We play a lot of match play, where handicaps have a huge impact.

Handicaps in match play are almost entirely unaffected. A 13 playing a 10 might now be a 10 playing a 7, but the difference is still the same size. You're subtracting out a constant (CR - Par) from both players. The (HI * Slope/113) remains the same.

Quote

By adopting all of the new WHS elements, we have adopted a World system that is not as accurate as what we have enjoyed.

This makes no sense and Dean has absolutely failed to provide any basis for this "less accurate" while ignoring that the WHS ADDS the CR to the course handicap calculation.

Quote

The new WHS alters a 40-year-old course-rating-based handicap system in favor of a "net par," which is, the USGA argues, easier for golfers to grasp.

It is easier. Shoot net par and you've "played to your handicap."

Quote

Steve Edmondson, the current USGA Senior Handicap Director stated: "We can't get clubs to apply section 3-5 today because it is simply unintuitive." John Bodenhamer, added: "Golfers have indeed found it difficult to disconnect par from the equation."

Yes, and what they say is both accurate and makes sense. The WHS method bakes in the "playing from different tees" and makes it easier to know what it takes to "play to your handicap."

Those are my notes right up until "The Par Pitfall." Dean has yet to make a valid point in any of this blog post thus far.

When I have the time, and feel like procrastinating a bit more like today, I'll continue with my response to this blog post.

I respect what Dean did in creating the original handicap system and the course ratinga system. The course rating system is one of the most elegant solutions to a very complex problem that I have ever seen. Nothing done by the WHS changes that. The course rating system is relatively unchanged, and its application in the WHS is, again, MORE accurate by the inclusion of the Course Rating than the previous system, in addition to the other benefits.

Dean deserves (and has been given) much credit for that. But, if this is how he thinks these days, Dean can remain Pope Emeritus but the Cardinals need to elect a new Pope.

During my weekly round with the usual Motley Crew...on the 4th hole slight dog right I drive the ball right.  I arrive at my ball and it is questionable as to whether it is in or out of bounds.  There is a white stake about 15 yards forward of my position and behind me is a large shrub/bush with no visible white stake to draw a straight line to determine the Out of Bounds line. It is for the most part a friendly round with some dough on the line to make it interesting so I ask one of my buddies for a ruling.  My ball is sitting on a grass line which is higher than that of what the golf course has obviously cut...so basically on a residential yard but at an angle would appear to be in play, but there is no other stake to determine this 100%.  My buddy immediately determines that the ball is out of bounds that the grass line determines out of bounds since there is no second stake to define the line.  Course score card clearly states out of bounds are determined by white stakes and or fence lines.  I argued this to be incorrect as how in the hell can a grass line determine Out of Bounds.  His logic was that he saw this ruling on the golf channel that if there are no markers indicating the out of bounds line that the difference in grass height defines the line. I cant see how this is possible simply due to the fact that what if the home owner comes out and cuts there grass to same length as the course? Now what determines OB by his logic?

A little long winded I know...but neither of us are budging on our position.  I have googled everything under the sun and for the life of me cannot find anything anywhere that would suggest that a grass line can determine OB.

Anyone have some insight on who is right or wrong here?  Or whats the correct way?

I took my penalty according to his ruling but immediately flagged down the cart girl to reload the Amstel cause I was a bit heated....

That was a little over a year ago.  Since then I attended an in-person Rules Workshop in Richmond, VA this past Spring.  A completely different experience from the online workshops, the presentations were pretty "standard", but the conversations in the breaks were really interesting.  The attendees had a wide variation in experience, from first timers to a few people with more than 20 Workshops under their belt, and one or two who worked with the USGA Rules Committee.  I took the exam in-person as well, improved my score to 94/100.  Through 2022 I worked as an official for both the Virginia State Golf Association and the Middle Atlantic Section of the PGA.  I officiated on about 20 days over the year, including two high-school competitions.  Recognizing that the Rules will be changing for 2023, I jumped at the chance to yet attend another Workshop, this on in Pinehurst just after Thanksgiving.  We had a similarly varied group, including the head of Rules for the Champion's Tour,   Unfortunately, that Workshop got cut short by the vandalism of two power substations, but I took the exam through the online platform last week.  I got my results yesterday, and I improved yet again, 97/100 right.  I'm EXTREMELY happy with this result.

So moving forward, I plan to continue officiating for the VSGA and the MAPGA.  I might explore some options with the Carolinas as well.  I guess I'm just posting this to brag a little, as well as to publicly thank @iacas for giving me a little nudge to start down this path.  I'll try to post again when something interesting pops up during my officiating days.

I shot well and was owe a small 3 digit amount from a few players. That's when the guy I don't play with often walks up and says he isn't paying because I had too many clubs in my bag. We walked to my bag and I counted my clubs and I didn't have too many. He then states look at the back your bag there is another club. Low and behold my 7 years daughters putter is in the umbrella hole as its been for the last year when she stated coming with me and wants to putt on the greens. All the other guys looked at him but he refuses to pay me out but pays everyone else. Whats your thoughts. All the other guys paid me out. 

Does the rules of golf cover this situation? 

Model Local Rules

---

The R&A seeks to engage in and support activities for the benefit of the sport of golf from The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.

I was wondering what people's thoughts are on it and whether any of your clubs use it during comps? You go 250m down the fairway thinking you are all good but cannot find a ball that even your playing partners say "was just off the fairway". It was nowhere near trees no OOB nor penalty area - it simply cannot be found.

With courses so busy these days, the delays it causes is compounded on days when there are no carts, because you have to walk all the way back to the tee and then back again.

Do you start hitting provisional balls every time the ball goes slightly off the fairway?

I am thinking of seeing if the Club may put this in place (perhaps under certain conditions?). What are the pros and cons? I understand a Local Rule can be put in place on certain days, so they could do it during times of extreme weather/lack of mowing? Is this true?  

I can see one main problem arising: 
1. This rule can be used for OOB shots too (where they thought the ball would be safe but it wasn't). You could argue that making someone tee off again puts pressure on them to not put it back in the same area again, so they get some "mental relief" that they can essentially be back where they would for Shot 4 without that extra pressure.

Also, most of the currently marked penalty areas are because of an overgrown creek behind dense ground vegetation. The penalty areas are marked (roughly) at the edges of the dense vegetation (see picture example). Players cannot see the creek. The dense vegetation looks the same on holes where there is no creek and no penalty area. For consistency and to reduce confusion, we have decided to define all edges of dense ground vegetation as penalty area.  

This adopts a popular USGA recommendation from 2019.

Committee Procedures 2C(2) cautions: "A Committee may define the edge of a penalty area by clearly describing it in writing but should do so only if there will be little or no doubt where the edge is. For example, where there are large areas of lava or desert that are to be treated as penalty areas, and the border between these areas and the intended general area is well defined, the Committee could define the edge of the penalty area as being the edge of the lava bed or desert." 

We are going ahead, but IMO "little or no doubt" is not possible. For example, the "edge of desert", no matter how "well defined" is often not a distinct line. Sand and grass may intermingle. An edge defined this way will never be as clear as stakes or a line. We will see what happens! 

Other comments: I believe the change will improve pace of play. And have minimal effect on handicaps. (Seems like I saw a study of this, but unable to find it again.)   

Does anyone have a similar experience with defining penalty areas by physical features? How did that go?     

The obvious answer is to take stroke and distance instead of lateral penalty relief. However, it is the last hole and we have penalties for slow play, so players will be reluctant to walk back to the tee. Also, even if they hit a provisional ball, if they discover their ball went into the penalty area they must abandon the provisional ball. Still necessitating a walk back for the stroke and distance option.

The solution might be model local rule B-3 that allows a provisional ball for a ball that might be lost or in a penalty area. Does anyone have experience with this local rule? 

Other ideas?

I'll start:

When I showed up to play in my first ever golf tournament (this was early 2000's). I opened my bag to find my wife had played a little practical joke on me. The night before the tournament she had taken all of the golf balls out of my bag and written "I love you, Chet" and drawn little hearts in red sharpie multiple times on every golf ball. (back then I used a white golf ball. Callaway, I think.)

Anyway, near the end of the first round teeing off on the par-5 fifteenth hole, which runs parallel to hole 16. I was fighting a snap hook at the time and over compensated, hitting a fade into the tree line between the two fairways. The ball comes to rest in the right rough just off the fairway on hole 16. My cart-mate and I head over and I see a guy on 16 addressing what looks like my ball. He's not in our tournament as I was in the lead group that day. He's just out there playing with his buddies. I yell at him "Wait! ... Wait! ... Wait!..." 

He looks up at me. I can clearly see there is red sharpie on the ball. I can't quite read it from where I am but there's a lot of red sharpie on it. "I think you are about to hit my ball." I say to him.
"No, I'm not." He looks at his buddies who are waiting for him to hit his shot. 

"Are you sure?" I'm trying to get close enough to actually read the ball. But by this point I'm pretty sure it's mine. Who else would have that much red sharpie all over their ball? 

"It's my ball." He says and actually starts to take his swing. 
"Wait! ... Wait! ... Don't hit it!" I shout at him. 
He actually stops his swing. 

"I'm pretty sure that ball says 'I love you, Chet' on it and has hearts drawn on it. ... Is that how you mark your ball too?" 

He looks at the ball. Looks at his buddies. Looks at the ball. Looks at his buddies. Then in a huff he picks up the ball says "F**K YOU!" and throws the ball at me. 

I dodge the ball; It whizzes past me. He stomps off, pouting, with his buddies laughing at him. One of his buddies gives me a shrug and a half hearted apologetic look. 

Now the rules part. He threw my ball right into the middle of the 15th fairway. Leaving me a much better shot than having to negotiate the ball back through the trees. From where my ball was now I might even be able to reach the par-5 in two. At the time I was unsure if I got to play the ball from where it now was, or if I had to replace it from where he picked it up. Now I know that a pissed off brat throwing your ball qualifies as an outside influence and the ball needed to be replaced back as near as possible to where it was before the guy picked it up and threw it at me. That was the day I learned about Rule 9.6 and Rule 14.2. 

It totally ruined my round but I felt the S&D penalty was appropriate.

Specifics:

I was on the 9th tee.  I hit my driver and really thought I hit it well but the ball went only 20 yards into a waste area in front of the tee box.  So I re-teed it and said "I'm hitting 3".  On the 2nd tee shot I again felt I hit it crisp but the ball shot weakly to the left going next to the #8 green and during my follow though the shaft shattered @ 8 inches above the club head.  So I head over to my ball "Hitting 4" (I need to verbalize these penalties or I may fail to count them) and that is when they all said to not count any penalties because it was very possible the shaft was breaking on the 1st tee shot. One guy even tried to sound authoritative and said "There was no intent to play a broken club so the shot does not count".  They even tried the "Its not fair, if the club had not broke you would likely be in much better position so do not penalize myself".

I did take the S&D penalty and played my 4th from where the 2nd tee shot ended up and finished with an 8 on the Par 4 and lost my match by 1 stroke.  I know it sucks, but in my mind I see no way around the S&D penalty.

Comments? 

The Worst Rule In Golf | MyGolfSpy

---

There should be a change here.

Their claims as to why it is overly harsh. 

1) Most golfers are not very good. 

Yes, but the rules of golf have been around way before pro golfer existed, and most were not very good. 

2) There are too much OB on many modern golf courses. 

Maybe were the author lives there are tons of courses with housing developments and tons of OB everywhere, but I don't see it. When I played on courses with a lot of housing, it isn't crazy tight that OB really comes into play that often. So, I think this claim is not valid.

3) PGA Tour players have the benefit of galleries and ball spotters to find lost balls. 

Yes, but I do not think it is consistent the further down you go the pro tour hierarchy. Also, this is just a claim to validate more bifurcation of the rules, and it's not really a good one. 

4) A lot of golf courses are not properly marked with hazards or maintained. 

This is true, but also the rules of golf cover this. A water hazard doesn't need to be marked for it to be a water hazard.  

5) It slows down play because you have to go back to the previous spot to re hit the shot. 

I get losing a golf ball in tall grass, or sometimes in normal rough sucks. If you hit one close to OB, or into the woods, hit a provisional. It speeds up play for a good portion of times you will have to take stroke and distance. 

Then the articles go into a few not really well backed reasons to further bifurcate the rules to make OB less penalizing for amateurs. Basically, they want the modified local rule of placing the ball in the fairway with two stroke penalty to be a one stroke penalty. This means that OB is now less penal than a lateral hazard. Imagine if the water hazard is at the base of a steep-ish slope. If you drop there, you will have a horrible lie/stance. I think right off the bat this stance is not valid. They go into where PGA Tour players get benefits over amateurs. Things like temporary immovable objects allow them to get free relief. Courses normally do not have the stands or other equipment needed to run a tournament. The argument is very weak. 

I might be willing to say that OB marked with a white stake and/or white line should be played like a lateral hazard. The scenario in my head is, what if there is a golf hole where there is a lake on the left, and OB on the right that goes down the entire hole. If you hit the ball into the lake, it is not playable. So, to me there is little difference between hitting it left in the water versus right OB. Though, you may be able to play it from the water. A lot of times a lateral hazard is not marked on the water's edge exactly. A lost ball is a lost ball. There is nothing staked, so it is hard to judge where it should be. So, stroke and distance make more sense. 

Yea, I think the rules make sense with stroke and distance penalty. I would say not overly harsh. 

This is how I mark my ball.  I have had a few embarrassing moments in the past where I've hit the wrong ball.  I started making a black "H" and it happened again.  So now I mark my ball this way so there is 0 chance of me hitting the wrong ball.  It also helps with people accidentally hitting my ball.  ProV1s are common and coveted.  But with my marking on it, people know its mine.

The thing is, with this amount of Sharpie on the ball...especially when I first mark it...i can often see blue marks on my club faces.  This is definitely not my intention, but I wonder if this could be taken as a way of me trying to read the marks on the clubface after a shot.

Are there any rule issues, here?  Ethical issues?  Anybody else notice the Sharpie on the clubface?

I also understand that there are some aspects that are allowed to be entered, and some that are not allowed. 

My question specifically is: In which form does this code of conduct need to be available? Is it enough for someone to say "that's part of our code of conduct", or is it a requirement, that the code of conduct is in written form? Also, is there a need that the local rule points to the code of conduct in any way?

For better understanding: I'm playing competition and the next course that we play has a "no smoking policy". I don't have a problem with it, as I don't smoke anyway, but one of my team-mates does, and someone told him "You'll get disqualified if you smoke on the course".  

Now I have looked at their local rules and there is no reference to a "code of conduct". I'm not sure if they even have an official "code of conduct" that states that smoking is not allowed.

I fully agree that he SHOULD respect this request from the club, but I am wondering if the club would really be allowed to DQ this player for this, if it's not properly documented in their local rules/code of conduct? 

This is an official national amateur tournament, so not just something organized by a club for its members.

My tee shot came to rest between line of golden furz bushes and cart path.  I looked at the lie and figured I could advance this ball nicely down the fairway.  It wasnt the bush that was bothering me but the cart path. Playing partners were high handicappers ( I'll explain why this was relevant ) and only issue they saw was the bush, not the fact that my ball was about 12" from the edge of the path right along the OOB line.  They could not see how a concrete path that was almost 1ft in front of my ball could be deemed to be interfering with my swing.  I have spent lot of time and money to get my swing where I am coming down on the ball with -3 or -4 Deg angle of attack and bottoming out maybe 4 to 5" in front of the ball.   My club was most definitely going to catch the path.  The two guys I was with couldnt grasp this and said any relief I get would be from the bush ( 1 drop shot ) and not free relief from the path which because if they were hitting it then they would have no issue with the path. ie High handicappers only see whats behind the ball,  not whats in front of it.   Ask a scratch golfer to hit a ball 3" infront of a concrete path.  Easy,  just hit it cause they are not concerned with whats behind the ball as they will be striking a descending blow.  High handicapper on the other hand is going to be coming down in most cases a few inches behind the ball and will be put off by the path behind the ball.  I just punched it out from where it was as didnt want to upset any one.  So in short what would you have done.  ?

So I'm trying to give my wife practical guidance on advice on the course to make things simple. Keep in mind that these ladies all have 30+ handicaps, are distance challenged, and at this time would never enter an individual competition.  The only ladies events they enter are team events - they are keeping golf social as maybe we all should.  So for casual rounds playing for individual score, I come up with the following:

Don't

1. Help each other read their own putts;
2. Give advice on whether to lay up or attempt to cross a water hazard;
3. Give advice on whether to chip or putt when just off the green.

Do:

1. Give advice on distances
2. Give advice on rules

I'm purposely ignoring the "what club did you hit?" because quite frankly in a casual round I don't think that information is helpful to any of these ladies. Any other thoughts?

We are playing a hole in which on one side of the concrete cart path is the grass on the other side is rocky, desert. My buddy hits his tee shot which comes to rest on the other side of the cart path under a prickly ugly bush. He's right handed but he turns his 7-iron upside down and addresses the ball left handed, with the club upside-down. Then he says "I get relief because I'm standing on the cart path." 

"Okay" I say.  

Then he drops the ball (from the shoulder as this is pre-2019) on the "good" side of the cart path within 2 club lengths no closer to the hole. 

I believe he should have had to hit from the crappy side of the cart path, by dropping the ball within 2 club lengths no closer to the hole. 

My contention is the nearest point of complete relief is in the desert. His contention is as long as it's within 2 club lengths no closer to the hole he can drop anywhere he wants. Who's right? 

Okay, now the kicker. He declares his ball in play. Now admittedly it is less than 2 club lengths from where it came to rest and isn't any closer to the hole. Then he addresses his ball (7 iron again) right handed this time and declares he gets relief again, because he's standing on the cart path. ... Which he is. 

He drops again, and now he's on the fairway, not even in the rough. 

So, with two drops and no stokes he's moved from under a bush in the desert, to the rough, to the fairway. 

Here's a picture which may help.

So he hits his 7 iron on the green. No penalty. I guess he may be right, but it's always felt shady and we've poked fun at each other over this incident for years now. 

What do you all think? 

When he's on the green, he is one of those guys that likes to line up his ball to the target by using the line on the ball. Before nearly every putt he picks up his ball, wipes it off a bit and then replaces it with the line pointed at his target. While he's doing all of that he marks his ball location with the toe of his putter. He never lets go of his putter. He hangs onto the grip and keeps the spot marked with the toe. 

I'm pretty sure he's not gaining any advantage as he seems to keep the toe of the putter still and seems to put the ball back pretty much exactly where it way. But my question is: 
Is this legal? 

My home course, Musgrove Mill, was severely damaged by Hurricane Helene. Today they are opening the entire course for play with two changes. Two par 4s, 14 and 15, are being played as par 3s.
 

My understanding is I should enter my score for handicap purposes on a hole by hole basis and omit the score for these two. My friend thought we should enter and PCC would adjust. The rule seems clear to me, but perhaps it’s because I have no experience with such changes. Any experts out there that could confirm?

Background: I belong to a golf club that organizes tournaments at a municipal course. Our club is trying to popularize and enforce the rules of golf in our events, but the golf course staff is not on the same page.

For example,  the course manager just sent an email to our club suggesting we should lift, clean, and place throughout the general area year round, citing allegedly terrible course conditions and lack of staff. The conditions are the same as the other public courses in our area.  

Also, the greenskeeper has refused to mark GUR or to allow our club volunteers to do it. Not sure why,  i think because he believes it is unattractive. He suggested we create a local rule essentially allowing players to decide for themselves what is GUR. 

To me,  this is not appropriate for administrators of a golf course. But perhaps financial concerns are more important than the rules? 

Looks like it's not dead yet...

Seems a bit silly. A small, paper thin sticker in the upper toe corner is deemed as ‘affecting ball flight’ but a crack in the middle isn’t. 

I recently hit a ball out of a bunker and the club hit a big unseen rock sending the ball in the wrong direction.  What is the ruling🤔it should be sand not rocks🤣do i just suck it up or?? 

Thanks everyone😊