Playing by the rules........ Is there one here who can cast the first stone?

[ejimsmith]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Just as well. Was it a conforming wedge? Hope so.

yes.. i got a new set last year w/ the new grooves.

also, i didn't know that it was legal.. SWEET!!  i'm more legal then i thought!

[Kobey]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Oh don't be ridiculous.

Number one, if you are practising or playing socially or not keeping score you don't need a scorecard.

Number 2, if you are going to reply by saying that if the card says "USGA rules govern all play" it doesn't matter if you've seen the card or not you are maintaiuning that a three yoear old hacking away in a bunker in view of her parents having lunch is "playing" and must follow the rules.

I think that we can assume that "all play" implies all competition play or play where peope are scoring or submitting cards for handicaps.

It does not apply on practise on the course or social play when people are not (or should not be) scoring.

I said technically.  Of course they aren't going to kick me off the course for not counting a penalty shot or something.  I was just pointing that out to see if any interesting discussions came out of it.  The same old same old OB/provisional discussion was getting boring. Thanks for playing Shorty.

[neophytea]

I once told a rules Nazi that following the rules is OK But only if we add one local rule:  Calling a wrong rule or misapplication of the rules results in forfeiture of the match and a $100 penalty.  He dropped the subject.

[mdl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Pretty sure no one is going to convince mdl to drive back and re-play his shot or to be more liberal in his provisionals so that he won't need to go back. But if you are reading this and run a course, consider helping guys avoid the situation altogether.

Wait, I just said that your argument of thinking of the almost surely unnecessary provisional as a practice swing for the next tee convinced me that I should take more provisionals when it's even a question of whether the ball might be OB.

But you are right that in the situation where I hit it into very in play rough and can't find it, I sure as hell am not walking (note WALKING) back to the tee to re-tee.  And I would be PISSED if on a busy and slowish day (like I said, pretty much every time I play), when I'm on pace for a 5 hour round, someone in the group in front of us walked 250 yards back to re-tee after looking for a ball for 5 minutes.  If you're worried about OB then sure, take liberal provisionals, I've been convinced of that.  But everyone has had a random shot into the rough not even that far off the fairway be unexpectedly unfindable.  Seriously, on a 5 hour day, if someone started walking back to re-tee for a lost ball, I'd hit over them and tell them they can feel free to play behind my group.  Take a freakin' +2 and drop.  We're not on tour with millions on the line.

And I've been convinced to take a +2 instead of playing it  as a lateral with +1, though the (already relatively rare) case where the problem is OB rather than in-play lost ball should happen less now that I'm convinced on the liberal OB provisionals.

[WWBDD]

Quote:

We're not on tour with millions on the line.

Precisely.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Kobey

I said technically.  Of course they aren't going to kick me off the course for not counting a penalty shot or something.  I was just pointing that out to see if any interesting discussions came out of it.  The same old same old OB/provisional discussion was getting boring. Thanks for playing Shorty.

That's the whole point I was making.

You aren't "technically" playing golf if you are practising.

The point is moot.

In the same way that I couldn't care less if people want to drop balls next to OB or have mulligans.

The ONLY point I have tried to make is that if you do that you don't score.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by mdl

Quote:

Wait, I just said that your argument of thinking of the almost surely unnecessary provisional as a practice swing for the next tee convinced me that I should take more provisionals when it's even a question of whether the ball might be OB.

But you are right that in the situation where I hit it into very in play rough and can't find it, I sure as hell am not walking (note WALKING) back to the tee to re-tee.  And I would be PISSED if on a busy and slowish day (like I said, pretty much every time I play), when I'm on pace for a 5 hour round, someone in the group in front of us walked 250 yards back to re-tee after looking for a ball for 5 minutes.  If you're worried about OB then sure, take liberal provisionals, I've been convinced of that.  But everyone has had a random shot into the rough not even that far off the fairway be unexpectedly unfindable.  Seriously, on a 5 hour day, if someone started walking back to re-tee for a lost ball, I'd hit over them and tell them they can feel free to play behind my group.  Take a freakin' +2 and drop.  We're not on tour with millions on the line.

And I've been convinced to take a +2 instead of playing it  as a lateral with +1, though the (already relatively rare) case where the problem is OB rather than in-play lost ball should happen less now that I'm convinced on the liberal OB provisionals.

I guess I missed your conversion moment regarding provisionals. Hallelujah. Another convert. :)

Regarding your 5-hour round a someone walking back to re-tee, I think you are backwards regarding the pace of play consequences. If you are on pace for a 5-hour round, that guy walking back in front of you will make up the "delay" pretty fast. At 5-hours, you are all waiting on nearly every tee anyway. (It it a closed loop system and you are only going to finish as fast as the slowest group in front of you...) Now if you were zipping around at your own pace and never waiting on the group in front of you, re-teeing may add some time to the round and perhaps the group behind could be invited to play through. Again, I am guessing you are overestimating this kind of delay because it seems more obvious than struggling on and around the green and standing and waiting on a tee box.

Want to drop without going back? In my group, you can surrender the hole, take a max score on the card for your handicap, and do whatever you want. That's part of the beauty of match play.

[Kobey]

Originally Posted by Shorty

That's the whole point I was making.

You aren't "technically" playing golf if you are practising.

The point is moot.

In the same way that I couldn't care less if people want to drop balls next to OB or have mulligans.

The ONLY point I have tried to make is that if you do that you don't score.

Why wouldn't you technically be playing golf if you are practicing?  If I am on a golf course using clubs to try and hit a ball into a hole I am playing golf.  I may not be following USGA rules but no one ever said they are the ultimate end all be all on golf.  Their rules only apply during a practice round if I decide I want to follow them.  I could create my own set of rules and have a tournament where Kobey's rules apply.  And if I want to use my rules and keep score and tell everyone I shot 7 under, that is my right.  There is no law against that.  If they don't ask if I played by USGA rules, that is their fault for assuming I did.

Of course I don't do that, but there are people who do.  That's why I brought up the point that course rules state that USGA rules apply.  If that wasn't on there, people could play any way they wanted and claim any score they wanted and no one could throw a bullshit flag since there were no set guidelines on how the round should be played.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Kobey

Why wouldn't you technically be playing golf if you are practicing?  If I am on a golf course using clubs to try and hit a ball into a hole I am playing golf.

Are you technically playing basketball if you're just practicing? If you're on a basketball court trying to shoot the ball into a basket but are just practicing or doing drills, are you playing basketball?

What if you're practicing on the golf course but *not* trying to hit the ball in the hole? (I.e., just practicing your drives and approach shots and not putting out.) Is that playing golf?

Not saying there's a right answer, just food for thought...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Kobey

Why wouldn't you technically be playing golf if you are practicing?  If I am on a golf course using clubs to try and hit a ball into a hole I am playing golf.

The point people are trying to make when they say things like that is this: if you're not following the Rules of Golf, you've basically made up your own game that closely resembles but which is not literally or actually "golf."

[Kobey]

Originally Posted by iacas

The point people are trying to make when they say things like that is this: if you're not following the Rules of Golf, you've basically made up your own game that closely resembles but which is not literally or actually "golf."

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

The point people are trying to make when they say things like that is this: if you're not following the Rules of Golf, you've basically made up your own game that closely resembles but which is not literally or actually "golf."

Which is invariably followed by people pointing out that 1-on-1 half-court basketball is still recognized as "basketball" and people play football, soccer, or baseball with all sorts of variations on the official rules.  Golf is sort of unique in that people get hung up on the rules. (There are some fair reasons for this, though---the rules were designed for small, informal games which is not true of many other sports, for example.)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Kobey

So who decides if it is actually golf?  Does the USGA have a rule that states if you don't follow their rules then you aren't playing golf?  They did not invent the game, they just got some people together and decided amongst themselves what the rules should be for everyone.  Most people might accept this without question but I'm a little different.

I don't care what game you choose, if you don't play by the rules then you aren't playing that game.  The rules are what define the game, and without them there is no game.  It doesn't matter if you're playing baseball, or Monopoly, or Go Fish, when you modify the rules, then you aren't playing the same game.   The rules don't exist just to punish wrongdoers.  They tell you how to play the game of golf.

In Monopoly when you land on Chance or Community Chest, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not so good.  The same is true of the Rules of Golf.   They tell you how to proceed in any imaginable situation, and do an amazing job of covering a lot of weird possibilities.  Sometimes you get a free drop, other times it costs a penalty to take a drop.  When you start to fudge the rules, then you aren't playing the game which is defined by the Rules of Golf.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by zeg

Golf is sort of unique in that people get hung up on the rules. (There are some fair reasons for this, though---the rules were designed for small, informal games which is not true of many other sports, for example.)

Consider these two office scenarios:

1 - "We had great fun playing basketball on Sunday afternoon. We had a really close game. My team won 46, 42. It was pretty close."

Noone makes any assumption about the skill level of the guy talking, because the score doesn't relate to skill level.

In the same way that if you say your daughter's soccer team won 12 nil, you know that it probably says more about the opposition than her team.

2. - "My friends and I had great fun playing golf on Sunday afternoon. I had 78. The first time I've broken 80. My mate had 73, but he's a pretty good player."

People assume that the players are highly skilled.  (The fact is, they played by their own rules and actually scored 112 and 90, even though Joe didn't finish on the 4th or 16th and Fred just picks his ball up any time it is within 5 feet.  He also took a mulligan on the first three holes.

Bill walks into the room. Someone says "Hey Bill, you play golf, Fred here had 78 on Sunday. What did you have?" Bill says that he had 85. (which was a genuine score).

The non golfers make an assumption about who is the best player.

I mean....if you are bowling, do you call spares strikes and call it a spare if you only leave two pins standing?

[Spyder]

My kid will one day be very good at Go Fish! Does this technically make him a Poker Professional, perhaps a WSOP candidate, as he would be using the same utensils (Playing Cards)? Never mind the determining factor of the "game" that you are playing, being the rules. Cards are cards and how they're used is not a determining factor. Therefore, any style of play with Cards should now be considered Poker.

There, debate settled!

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeg

Golf is sort of unique in that people get hung up on the rules. (There are some fair reasons for this, though---the rules were designed for small, informal games which is not true of many other sports, for example.)

Consider these two office scenarios:

1 - "We had great fun playing basketball on Sunday afternoon. We had a really close game. My team won 46, 42. It was pretty close."

Noone makes any assumption about the skill level of the guy talking, because the score doesn't relate to skill level.

In the same way that if you say your daughter's soccer team won 12 nil, you know that it probably says more about the opposition than her team.

2. - "My friends and I had great fun playing golf on Sunday afternoon. I had 78. The first time I've broken 80. My mate had 73, but he's a pretty good player."

People assume that the players are highly skilled.  (The fact is, they played by their own rules and actually scored 112 and 90, even though Joe didn't finish on the 4th or 16th and Fred just picks his ball up any time it is within 5 feet.  He also took a mulligan on the first three holes.

Bill walks into the room. Someone says "Hey Bill, you play golf, Fred here had 78 on Sunday. What did you have?" Bill says that he had 85. (which was a genuine score).

The non golfers make an assumption about who is the best player.

I mean....if you are bowling, do you call spares strikes and call it a spare if you only leave two pins standing?

RE: Consider these two office scenarios (what would happen at my office  - in RED) :

1 - "We had great fun playing basketball on Sunday afternoon. We had a really close game. My team won 46, 42. It was pretty close." Noone makes any assumption about the skill level of the guy talking, because the score doesn't relate to skill level.

Sure they would, and right off the hop if the guy's a bit clumsy and/or out of shape looking and if they're as judgmental as the golf story audience later in this festival of analogies. People might ask if this was a pickup game at the rec centre or was it in a league, and if it was a league game, which league, then what position the guy plays. But I’d be shocked, yeah literally shocked, if nobody asked him how many points he scored. Maybe the guy is a bench warmer and maybe he’s the starting point guard, but either way, before the conversation was over the validity of that score and his level of contribution to the “win” would all come out.

In the same way that if you say your daughter's soccer team won 12 nil, you know that it probably says more about the opposition than her team.

Once they get going in any organized sport around here, kids are divided into leagues and teams based on skill level. Either this team is a rep team that’s likely featured in local sports coverage. I’d actually be surprised if both teams in the same league or division one team even have 12 scoring chances in organized outdoor soccer. Probably this would be indoor soccer or outdoor soccer at a beginner or house-league level. Still, someone would invariably ask what position the girl plays and if it’s a remotely attacking position, how many goals or assist the player had.

2. - "My friends and I had great fun playing golf on Sunday afternoon. I had 78. The first time I've broken 80. My mate had 73, but he's a pretty good player." People assume that the players are highly skilled.  (The fact is, they played by their own rules and actually scored 112 and 90, even though Joe didn't finish on the 4th or 16th and Fred just picks his ball up any time it is within 5 feet.  He also took a mulligan on the first three holes.

No, people hear someone talking about golf on Monday morning and they change the subject. If the listeners are non-golfers and they haven't fallen asleep or walk away they likely assume both players are not very good since the people on television shoot in the 60s and in the 70s only on a bad day. If they’ve ever played, they might assume that, based on their own experience, everyone gets mulligans on their own ball or plays “best ball”, that these guys are average players at best and possibly awful. If the audience contains avid golfers, then questions of their handicap, which course and from which tees they played, and a chant of “bulls***” would soon be heard from ½ way down the hall.

Bill walks into the room. Someone says "Hey Bill, you play golf, Fred here had 78 on Sunday. What did you have?" Bill says that he had 85. (which was a genuine score). The non golfers make an assumption about who is the best player.

It's widely accepted that the non-golfers already left and couldn't care less who's a better player other than to know which person to steer clear of on Monday mornings. Being a devout rulie and generally honest person though, Bill probably would ask Fred a couple leading questions (like whether the ball’s initial direction is more influenced by swing path or clubface angle) which would have Fred reeling. Then after Bill proceeds to poke a zillion little holes in Fred’s story, those cornered and still forced to listen have pegged Bill as a poor sport and Fred as a fibber and teller of very boring Monday morning water cooler stories.

I mean....if you are bowling, do you call spares strikes and call it a spare if you only leave two pins standing?

Around here, players are such inherent cheats that bowling alleys resorted to electronic scoring systems. Basically, all the players have to do is enter their names and roll the balls toward the pins, and there's no guarantee the names on the screen are real either. The computer takes care of all the scoring, but often has no way to validate the identity of the player or whether or not he's using a regulation ball. Yeah, it’s that bad!!

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I mean....if you are bowling, do you call spares strikes and call it a spare if you only leave two pins standing?

Around here, players are such inherent cheats that bowling alleys resorted to electronic scoring systems. Basically, all the players have to do is enter their names and roll the balls toward the pins, and there's no guarantee the names on the screen are real either. The computer takes care of all the scoring, but often has no way to validate the identity of the player or whether or not he's using a regulation ball. Yeah, it’s that bad!!

Ha -

I used to go down to a bowling alley near me when I was young and they gave you a sheet of paper and a pencil and you did it yourself. Never thought of cheating though. Always seemed happy with a score of around 180 when I was 12 or whatever.

Now, as you say, they all have the electronic system. I assumed that it was because the average moron these days can't work out the system.

I have tried to explain how the system works to kids brought up with then screen system and  - ......man..people think cricket is hard to explain!!!!

And you're right about the other stuff. I only discuss golf with people who I know are avid players.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Consider these two office scenarios: [...]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't buy it.  The purpose of the game is to have fun, not to simplify water cooler discussions after the fact.  Better to just call it golfing --- most people don't really care what some stranger shot on the weekend, and most acquaintances close enough to care will figure out in short order whether they're playing strictly by the books or some informal variant.  Unless you've got a better generic term for "golf-like" games, I think it's better to accept that any of the variations on hitting a ball from tee to cup is golf, just like 1-on-1, 3-on-3 are all basketball.  If you play by the USGA or R&A; rules, you're playing the most common official set of rules, but I really don't accept those to be the only way to play the game.

Just think of this---the USGA rules have changed over the years.  So there's not even a single official USGA golf, it depends on when you played the game.  It really isn't something worth getting geeked out over.

I will point out, however, that there's one extremely common case where it does matter: when keeping a handicap.  If you're doing that, then for rounds you're handing in, you must follow the rules you agreed to keep your handicap under.  But that's really a different issue.