Dave's Journey With the Rules of Golf

[Rulesman]

18 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I had another interesting ruling last week, in a pro "junior/senior fourball" event.  Near one of the greens was a drain, with the actual grate set maybe 3 or 4 inches below the ground surface.  It wasn't in a depressed area, basically just a straight-sided hole, with the surrounding ground pretty level.  A Player's ball was in some longer grass adjacent to the grate, maybe even overhanging a bit, to the "side" of the drain, so the path of his swing was "tangent" to the circular grate.  The ball was at ground level, so 3 or 4 inches above the metal grate itself.   As I saw it, there was no way at all that the actual Obstruction would impact any reasonable swing path, so I denied relief.  I did talk it over with another official, who said he would probably have allowed the relief, but agreed that it was a borderline call.

Dave

Were you aware of the status/competence of the player before you made up your mind? If he had been a beginner would you have made the same decision?

[DaveP043]

4 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Dave

Were you aware of the status/competence of the player before you made up your mind? If he had been a beginner would you have made the same decision?

Yes, this was a competition for local golf professionals, so I knew he was at minimum a pretty competent player.  I also asked what kind of shot he needed to play, if he had wanted to go steeply down it could have altered my thinking.  But he needed a pretty level angle of attack to get the ball up, and have it stop near the hole.  Given those factors, and the depth of the grate below the ball, there really was no possibility that the grate would interfere with his swing.

[DaveP043]

On 5/13/2025 at 8:49 AM, DaveP043 said:

Yes, this was a competition for local golf professionals, so I knew he was at minimum a pretty competent player.  I also asked what kind of shot he needed to play, if he had wanted to go steeply down it could have altered my thinking.  But he needed a pretty level angle of attack to get the ball up, and have it stop near the hole.  Given those factors, and the depth of the grate below the ball, there really was no possibility that the grate would interfere with his swing.

I appreciate the 👍 from @Rulesman, one reason I post these updates is to open myself for constructive criticism from more knowledgeable or experienced people. 

Another reason is so that other folks might learn from my experiences, and his questions bring up an important point.  Rule 16.1 is pretty clear, you must have interference with your stance or area of intended swing to be allowed free relief.  But the existence of interference is much less easily defined.  It can depend on the location of the ball and the Abnormal Course Condition, the terrain and vegetation around the area, the direction of play, the type of shot that might be reasonably intended, and the skill of the player.  You don't get relief when the interference only exists when the player's intended shot is "clearly unreasonable".  I needed to evaluate all of these criteria under the watchful eye of the PGA professional who would have preferred to take relief from a pretty gnarly lie.  They say doing rules official work is hours of boredom interrupted by moments of intense pressure.  

[DaveP043]

On 5/12/2025 at 4:05 PM, mdl said:

That being said, of course in an actual youth tournament, it feels lame to DQ a kid for something obviously innocent like this. But I agree this is a rule it makes sense not to get rid of or complicate like some of the dumb rules they've done away with, like accidentally tapping your ball off the tee counting as a stroke, for the reason above plus what Dave said.

We don't go out of our way to DQ anyone, or even to enforce any penalties.  Actually, we do our best to intervene when we can, to avoid penalties.  But when someone brings it to the attention of the Committee, we don't have any choice.  All rules apply in these events, we can't simply choose not to follow this particular one.

As for the "dumb rule" you mentioned, I looked back as far as 1980, and accidentally knocking your ball off the tee wasn't a penalty back then, 45 years ago.  See Rule 14 here:

Rules Of Golf 1980

They haven't done away with anything in that regard.

 

[p1n9183]

The world of ruling is really interesting in golf. 

I've had a very interesting discussion after a mid-am with the rules committee were they were trying to make me understand why it's only one shot penalty when you drop outside of a penalty area after trying to hit the ball out of it without success. I was supporting the idea that the player should repeat the shot from the penalty area adding 1 penalty stroke or 2 strokes if choose to drops out of the penalty area. It felt to me that letting the player drop outside of the penalty area for free wasn't right. 

This last weekend another situation happened, we have several radio towers on our course. The local rule says that if you hit one with your ball you have to re-hit the shot, you are not allowed to continue with the first ball. A friend of mine hit a ball towards OB but it hit a tower that was placed outside of the white stakes. The ball ended OB after the bounce but we applied the local rule and make him re-hit without penalties. Is that ok? do the placement of the tower (inside or outside the course) matters? Of course the local rule don't take this into consideration.     

On 3/25/2025 at 6:02 PM, DaveP043 said:

If a Player uses a non-conforming club to make a stroke, he is DQ. 

On 3/25/2025 at 6:02 PM, DaveP043 said:

the Official in Charge, a young employee of the Middle Atlantic PGA who will be heading up their junior program this year, had a discussion with the player at scoring.

What if the player didn't hit any shot with the clubs with the stickes on when the comment reach the rules staff? If you were to approach the guy at that moment he would finish the round with less clubs but avoid DQ. 

[DaveP043]

 

1 hour ago, p1n9183 said:

I was supporting the idea that the player should repeat the shot from the penalty area adding 1 penalty stroke or 2 strokes if choose to drops out of the penalty area. It felt to me that letting the player drop outside of the penalty area for free wasn't right. 

Yeah, all of the basic PA relief options are available for just one stroke.  However, 17.2a(2) offers an additional choice, the Player might choose to take Stroke and Distance by dropping within the PA, where he made his first attempt to play from the PA.  If he decides after dropping not to play it, he can then take any of the other options, for one additional PS, two in total.

 

1 hour ago, p1n9183 said:

This last weekend another situation happened, we have several radio towers on our course. The local rule says that if you hit one with your ball you have to re-hit the shot, you are not allowed to continue with the first ball. A friend of mine hit a ball towards OB but it hit a tower that was placed outside of the white stakes. The ball ended OB after the bounce but we applied the local rule and make him re-hit without penalties. Is that ok? do the placement of the tower (inside or outside the course) matters? Of course the local rule don't take this into consideration.    

Model Local Rule E-11 is probably being used.  The Committee can define whether the rule applies only to specific power lines or structures, could limit it to only those lines or structures in bounds.  However, then you have to determine where the ball hit the power line, which is pretty difficult, so most often they apply no matter where the ball hits the power line.  You can check the specific wording of the local rule to be sure. And the MLR as written applies no mater where the ball ends up.  So I think you did right, the player should replay the stroke with no penalty.

1 hour ago, p1n9183 said:

What if the player didn't hit any shot with the clubs with the stickes on when the comment reach the rules staff? If you were to approach the guy at that moment he would finish the round with less clubs but avoid DQ. 

You're right, the DQ only applies if a Stroke is made with the non-conforming club.  We'd have acted very quickly if we could have avoided that.  However, he had stickers on the driver, and we were made aware he had hit driver several times before we got the report.

 

[p1n9183]

21 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

If he decides after dropping not to play it, he can then take any of the other options, for one additional PS, two in total.

Good to know, is reasonable. is like been in the hazard form the start. play it from there or get out of the PA with a penalty stroke. 

 

21 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

However, he had stickers on the driver, and we were made aware he had hit driver several times before we got the report.

He was completely doomed already.  

[DaveP043]

Hard on the heels of Sam Burns' Temporary Water ruling at Oakmont, I just got done with two days of junior golf at my home club.  We had heavy rain Sunday night, and the 7th fairway was very wet, with standing water in some areas.  My assignment both says was to stay there and assist the players in dealing with the water issues.  So I had dozens and dozens of rulings about the existence of Temporary Water interference, and in determining the Nearest Point of Complete Relief for each one.  In the interest of pace of play, I usually got to each ball before the player did, to make an initial assessment, and to begin the search for the NPCR.  I also explained to each player that they must first drop the ball, and then could take Lift Clean and Replace relief.  In some cases, the player decided to simply take LCP, and play the shot even though there was a little water around their feet.  A couple of long days, but lots of "thank you" from both players and parents.  

For those who care to look a little deeper, you can look to Rule 16.1 for relief from Temporary Water, the definitions of Temporary Water and Nearest Point of Complete Relief, and Model Local Rule E-3 for the correct wording of lift clean and place relief.  I'd suggest some of the NBC golf announcers look at that Temporary Water definition themselves before condemning the ruling that Burns got.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'd suggest some of the NBC golf announcers look at that Temporary Water definition themselves before condemning the ruling that Burns got.

It's gotta piss off the USGA when their own broadcast partner throws them under the bus without actually knowing the Rule.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's gotta piss off the USGA when their own broadcast partner throws them under the bus without actually knowing the Rule.

And when they provide an actual expert in the Rules to be consulted during the broadcast.  Katherine was in the booth during the rain delay, I'm sure she didn't go too far once play resumed.

[saevel25]

I think Burns handled it well in the post round interview. Also, it is crazy how many PGA tour players don't even know some basic rules. I think they rely on rules officials too much in giving them a personal excuse to not even know the rules of their own sport. 

It sucks, you see water splash when you strike the turf, but that does not define what temp water is. 

It was annoying how much the announcers brought it up. 

[mdl]

I didn't see the Burns ruling. Were the announcers complaining that since you could see water spray on contact that there should be a temporary water ruling? Was it more gray area than that? The rule is a bit wiggly honestly. Like, once you take your stance is there water visible? But... you can't step down too hard?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, mdl said:

I didn't see the Burns ruling. Were the announcers complaining that since you could see water spray on contact that there should be a temporary water ruling? Was it more gray area than that? The rule is a bit wiggly honestly. Like, once you take your stance is there water visible? But... you can't step down too hard?

It's not all that wiggly IMO. Look at the definition of temporary water.

[Huffy]

20 hours ago, mdl said:

Like, once you take your stance is there water visible?

Correct, just like relief from a sprinkler head; you can't take a giant stance to put it in play (unless of course that is genuinely how you play). If you take your normal stance and water is visible you get relief, if you have to jump to stand on one foot to get it to show no relief. IF the rule was that if you could get water to show at all, there would have been nowhere on that course anyone could play.

I can't comprehend why the ruling has become so controversial, I think Sam called 2 officials to see if one would maybe be more lax than the other, but besides that he knew the rule which is why even he didn't make a huge deal out of it to either offical.

[mdl]

5 hours ago, Huffy said:

Correct, just like relief from a sprinkler head; you can't take a giant stance to put it in play (unless of course that is genuinely how you play). If you take your normal stance and water is visible you get relief, if you have to jump to stand on one foot to get it to show no relief. IF the rule was that if you could get water to show at all, there would have been nowhere on that course anyone could play.

I can't comprehend why the ruling has become so controversial, I think Sam called 2 officials to see if one would maybe be more lax than the other, but besides that he knew the rule which is why even he didn't make a huge deal out of it to either offical.

On 6/18/2025 at 4:33 PM, iacas said:

It's not all that wiggly IMO. Look at the definition of temporary water.

Fair enough. By wiggly I just mean the bit about stepping hard or the like doesn't count. Like, what if the player says they plan on playing the lie with massive weight on the front foot and ball back in the stance to try ensure no bounce interaction to prevent the club getting sucked into the soggy turf before the ball, and it's only with ~80% of weight on the front foot that you can see water?

But I was more wondering what the announcers were complaining about?

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, mdl said:

Fair enough. By wiggly I just mean the bit about stepping hard or the like doesn't count. Like, what if the player says they plan on playing the lie with massive weight on the front foot and ball back in the stance to try ensure no bounce interaction to prevent the club getting sucked into the soggy turf before the ball, and it's only with ~80% of weight on the front foot that you can see water?

But I was more wondering what the announcers were complaining about?

The rules can t cover every possible situation, this one is reasonably clear.  How would you rewrite it to fairly cover the situation you ask, and would it be better or more consistently understood?

I think the announcers saw spray from the practice swings, and ASSUMED that there must be standing water there.  But wet turf will produce spray.  And of course Faxon was a tour player, so he views it from a players standpoint.  But players often don't understand the rules really well.  Its a shame they didn't get an actual rules expert at that moment, we know the USGA had people available.  

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, mdl said:

Fair enough. By wiggly I just mean the bit about stepping hard or the like doesn't count. Like, what if the player says they plan on playing the lie with massive weight on the front foot and ball back in the stance to try ensure no bounce interaction to prevent the club getting sucked into the soggy turf before the ball, and it's only with ~80% of weight on the front foot that you can see water?

But I was more wondering what the announcers were complaining about?

It probably wouldn't matter if he stood on one foot — if he was still for a second, the water would likely recede and not be visible.

[mdl]

44 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The rules can t cover every possible situation, this one is reasonably clear.  How would you rewrite it to fairly cover the situation you ask, and would it be better or more consistently understood?

I think the announcers saw spray from the practice swings, and ASSUMED that there must be standing water there.  But wet turf will produce spray.  And of course Faxon was a tour player, so he views it from a players standpoint.  But players often don't understand the rules really well.  Its a shame they didn't get an actual rules expert at that moment, we know the USGA had people available.  

Yeah I agree that as a rules official it's clear enough. It's explained elsewhere what is meant by taking a stance, and what counts as reasonable for assessing penalties and free drops and the like. I meant more like there's enough wiggle room that it seems plausible that Faxon just kinda knows that when it's really wet you can probably get an official to give you a free drop and if s/he doesn't the other players will feel aggrieved with you