Damaged Greens and $$$$

[Bump-n-MI]

This past weekend I played a money game with 6 other guys. My foursome is following the other 3 in our group. Our threesome gets to #11 (430 yd par 4), the green is diseased and damaged leaving too many unpredictable putts. They decide to adopt a "2 putt max" on this hole. Turns out to be no big deal. The next green is in the same condition, HOWEVER this is 560 yd par 5. One guy in my group reaches the hole in 2 and has a 50+' eagle putt and another guy in my group hits his third shot to 1.5'. The eagle putt is hit about 15' past the hole and the guy picks up his ball because our first group has deemed this green to be a "2 putt max". The other guy taps in his birdie putt but is pissed. His stance was the greens damage had no impact on the outcome of the eagle putt (I agree with his assessment) + it was a 50+' putt. There is only 1 skin all day (quite the payout for the one fellow). There was no bad blood between the guys nor with anybody in my group (surprisingly because it is a very competitive bunch). How would you and your playing partners have handled this? Anybody else ever have a situation like this?

[Big_M]

how did you guys get notification that the 2-putt rule was in effect... was it before or after you played the hole, becuase this could impact how one plays the hole. Either way it sounds like a bad break based on rules that were agreed upon. If the rules were NOT agreed upon, well that's a whole different story...

[Jay-Bird]

If you all agreed to the two-putt rule, then it is what it is. The guy who felt like his two-putt birdie was better than the other guy's should have made the eagle putt. The rule was established; the hole was halved.

[RemyM]

How would you and your playing partners have handled this?

We would have played golf and counted every stroke until the ball was in the hole.

[firstcut]

We would have played golf and counted every stroke until the ball was in the hole.

I'm down with this. Everyone has the same handicapp on a shitty green(s). I don't think I would have agreed to a two putt rule no matter what.

Now, I have played with groups that call ALL bunkers "free drops" after a particularly wet rainy night. You can't really do that with green though...

[mruseless]

If you all agreed to the two-putt rule, then it is what it is. The guy who felt like his two-putt birdie was better than the other guy's should have made the eagle putt. The rule was established; the hole was halved.

I agree with Jay-Bird. Everyone agreed to a 2-putt max, then the outcome was just. I doubt that 50 foot eagle putt would have gone 15 feet past the hole if that rule wasn't in effect. He probably put some extra juice on the putt just to make sure it got there, and to take out some of the break, knowing the worst he could get was a birdie.

[oo77oo]

Ya just play out the hole the way it should be. Today I played on a course that just airigated their greens and it was like putting on hard wood floors.

[JohnTwing]

I agree with Jay-Bird. Everyone agreed to a 2-putt max, then the outcome was just. I doubt that 50 foot eagle putt would have gone 15 feet past the hole if that rule wasn't in effect. He probably put some extra juice on the putt just to make sure it got there, and to take out some of the break, knowing the worst he could get was a birdie.

Correct, the result of the 1st put is meaningless if the player knew he had no penalty for missing by a lot.

[Octuple Bogey]

I suppose that this is the sort of issue that can arise when people play for money. I suppose that as long as the stakes aren't high and everybody remains good friends no serious harm is done.

But honestly, I also agree that everybody probably should have putted every shot out until their ball was in the hole. Everybody was playing under the same conditions on every one of these greens. Getting a 2-putt from 5 feet on a bad green does not take as much skill as getting a 2-putt from 50 feet on that same green. But I suppose if you had all already agreed upon this rule that in the sake of being fair and sticking to your word you were all right in honoring the rule. It can affect playing strategy. But in doing so a weakness in that rule became apparent...

[Fourputt]

I suppose that this is the sort of issue that can arise when people play for money. I suppose that as long as the stakes aren't high and everybody remains good friends no serious harm is done.

+1 Good post, and exactly the way I'd have approached it. I play occasionally with a bunch of guys (can be anywhere from 6 to 12 of us), and we always have at least 2 groups, sometimes 3 foursomes, and always several money games going (most that can be lost is about $12). We play by the Rules of Golf, period. That way there is never any possibility of any deviation from one group to the next. Our greens were aerated last week, and the fairway aeration is an ongoing thing. The only compensation we used within the group was to declare holes in the fairway to be GUR so the player was given relief (not rolling the ball, not placing it, but dropping it as the rules require) if he had such a lie. The greens were bumpy and sandy.... but all players had the same disadvantage, so there was no reason to change or waive a rule for that.

[Bump-n-MI]

We play by the Rules of Golf, period. That way there is never any possibility of any deviation from one group to the next.

Aeration and disease are two completely different things. A greens entire surface is aerated, disease often only impacts a portion of a green. It's like comparing apples to oranges….and in this case does not apply.

There were times when 2 people would have similar length and breaking putts but on opposite sides of the hole. One players putt would be fine and role smoothly, the others putt would bounce and zig-zag because the area he had to putt over was diseased. We were playing by the rules… our adopted rules based on the course conditions and to keep it fair/equal for all players. Playing the hole to completion was an option, just not the best option based on the circumstances and course conditions. I pride myself on honesty and keeping the integrity of the game (including rules) intact. As I have stated, individuals were at a disadvantage and would have been unfairly penalized had we not adopted our rule.

[Fourputt]

Aeration and disease are two completely different things. A greens entire surface is aerated, disease often only impacts a portion of a green. It's like comparing apples to oranges….and in this case does not apply.

A better and more equitable solution would have been to declare the diseased areas to be ground under repair and give relief from them under the Rule 25-1b (iii).

(iii) On the Putting Green: If the ball lies on the putting green, the player must lift the ball and place it, without penalty, at the nearest point of relief that is not in a hazard or, if complete relief is impossible, at the nearest position to where it lay that affords maximum available relief from the condition, but not nearer the hole and not in a hazard. The nearest point of relief or maximum available relief may be off the putting green.

[bcp]

IMO, there is no basis for any sort of argument if everyone agreed to the rule. If it were me with the eagle putt and the 2 putt rule in effect, I would have likely run it well past the hole also. The key point is that all involved agreed to the rule. At that point, any discussion of it was moot.

[Bump-n-MI]

IMO, there is no basis for any sort of argument if everyone agreed to the rule. If it were me with the eagle putt and the 2 putt rule in effect, I would have likely run it well past the hole also. The key point is that all involved agreed to the rule.

Everyone in my group accepted the rule……and who was / is arguing? The guy had every right to be pissed, fortunately he didn’t piss and moan about it. He completely understood why the first group incorporated this rule.

At that point, any discussion of it was moot.

It's not moot, the question was asked to get a feel for what others might have done in that situation.

[mruseless]

Everyone in my group accepted the rule……and who was / is arguing? The guy had every right to be pissed, fortunately he didn’t piss and moan about it. He completely understood why the first group incorporated this rule.

In my opinion, if he agreed to the rule, then he doesn't even have the right to be pissed, unless he is pissed at himself for agreeing to the rule.

[Fourputt]

Everyone in my group accepted the rule……and who was / is arguing? The guy had every right to be pissed, fortunately he didn’t piss and moan about it. He completely understood why the first group incorporated this rule.

And it's sparked a good and possibly useful discussion. Even after the fact, such discussions may bring up other options that hadn't been considered on the spur of the moment.... something to keep in mind the next time a similar situation arises.