Jump to content
IGNORED

Is the inadvertent movement of a golf ball really that important to, and for the game of golf?


scv76
Note: This thread is 3804 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

From a molecular standpoint, the ball is always moving.  From a Quantum Mechanics standpoint, it may not actually be there.  See decision 123.54i, Schrödinger's ball.

From the Finchem cal in thread-

...

With that said, I think rules need to adapt to modern technology.

i.e. Suppose, 10 years from now, high tech cameras existed that showed that 50% or more of golf balls moved every so slightly before being struck- the movement is not visible to the naked eye, but could be proved with the new high tech cameras.

If this was the case, then I think the ball moving rule would need to be amended- sure, it is more black and white to have a bright line rule that says any movement= penalty and no movement= no penalty, but if the majority (or even a significant minority) of balls are shown to move ever so slightly, then the rule would need to be re-written to account for this.  Even now, some might argue that we should not penalize unintentional movement that is less than a ball and does not result in an improved lie.

Edit- Going to the speeding examples, if modern technology could show every instance of when someone was 0.1 mph over the speed limit, then it would make sense to have a certain grace margin built into the law before tickets were issued.

:mizuno: MP-52 5-PW, :cobra: King Snake 4 i 
:tmade: R11 Driver, 3 W & 5 W, :vokey: 52, 56 & 60 wedges
:seemore: putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

MEfree, we'll cross that bridge if we get to it. There's no point in discussing it now.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Why add more complexity to the rules.  99% of the complaints against the rules are that they are too complicated, yet you want to add more decision making to the rules.  Who decides if an advantage has been gained?  The player?  A rules official?  The committee?  What constitutes an advantage?  We already have one rule which requires a judgement call by the committee involving the definition of a "significant advantage", now we have to add to that a rule which requires specifying what defines an advantage anytime the ball twitches? I'll throw one back at you which is much easier to regulate.  Anytime that any movement of the ball is observed, it is a one stroke penalty.  No twitching, no oscillating, no special definition for just for golf as to what "moved" means.  The ball must be replaced to avoid a 2 stroke penalty, even if the movement is so slight that you are just going through the motions.  Now you have a rule which is clear, black and white, and easily enforceable.

Actually I was in the middle of editing my post when you quoted it. Please go back and re-read. We basically agree. With an exception...I would assess no penalty if the ball moves as the player addresses it. The ball should always be replaced, with the exception when it has moved so slightly that replacing it would be pointless. "Replacing" a ball that has only twitched could actually give the player an advantage because if you pick up a ball only to replace it in essentially the same spot, it's probably going to be sitting up more.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Why add more complexity to the rules.  99% of the complaints against the rules are that they are too complicated, yet you want to add more decision making to the rules.  Who decides if an advantage has been gained?  The player?  A rules official?  The committee?  What constitutes an advantage?  We already have one rule which requires a judgement call by the committee involving the definition of a "significant advantage", now we have to add to that a rule which requires specifying what defines an advantage anytime the ball twitches?

I'll throw one back at you which is much easier to regulate.  Anytime that any movement of the ball is observed, it is a one stroke penalty.  No twitching, no oscillating, no special definition for just for golf as to what "moved" means.  The ball must be replaced to avoid a 2 stroke penalty, even if the movement is so slight that you are just going through the motions.  Now you have a rule which is clear, black and white, and easily enforceable.

Actually I was in the middle of editing my post when you quoted it. Please go back and re-read. We basically agree.

With an exception...I would assess no penalty if the ball moves as the player addresses it. The ball should always be replaced, with the exception when it has moved so slightly that replacing it would be pointless. "Replacing" a ball that has only twitched could actually give the player an advantage because if you pick up a ball only to replace it in essentially the same spot, it's probably going to be sitting up more.

Except that there is no advantage when he has already been assessed a one stroke penalty.  The point of replacing the ball is that it is put back in exactly the same spot, same lie, and that applies to the vertical as well as the horizontal.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The point of replacing the ball is that it is put back in exactly the same spot, same lie, and that applies to the vertical as well as the horizontal.

Sounds great in theory, but we live in the real world. If I pick a ball up in the rough, pine straw, etc and place it back in the same spot, I'm probably going to end up with a better lie.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sounds great in theory, but we live in the real world. If I pick a ball up in the rough, pine straw, etc and place it back in the same spot, I'm probably going to end up with a better lie.

Then you did not put it back in the "same" spot.

-Matt-

"does it still count as a hit fairway if it is the next one over"

DRIVER-Callaway FTiz__3 WOOD-Nike SQ Dymo 15__HYBRIDS-3,4,5 Adams__IRONS-6-PW Adams__WEDGES-50,55,60 Wilson Harmonized__PUTTER-Odyssey Dual Force Rossie II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The point of replacing the ball is that it is put back in exactly the same spot, same lie, and that applies to the vertical as well as the horizontal.

Sounds great in theory, but we live in the real world. If I pick a ball up in the rough, pine straw, etc and place it back in the same spot, I'm probably going to end up with a better lie.

Then you are in breach of the rule.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

Thirded.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Then you did not put it back in the "same" spot.

Then you are in breach of the rule.

Thirded.

You are all under the mistaken belief that it is physically possible, even with photographs, reference points, and instrumentation, to place the ball in the exact place where it was prior to the movement.  iacas, for all your self-proclaimed belief and expertise in physics, I'd expect you to realize how unlikely that is.  I would further expect you to recognize the very strong probability that when a ball barely oscillates and repositions by maybe a millimeter as Tiger's did, and then the player picks it up off of the ground, and then replaces it back on the ground, it's likely to be further away from its original position than if he were to just leave it where it sits.

Further, a ball that comes to rest after lateral movement through tall grass is likely to have blades of grass resting against the sides and over the top of the ball.  Unless the player replaces each blade of grass, he's likely to have a better lie when he replaces a ball directly down on top of that grass.  I've never seen a player "placing" a ball push or wiggle it down into the grass, or brush blades of grass over the top of the ball, as would be required to replicate a typical lie one finds when a ball naturally comes to rest in tall grass.  They simply place it down on the grass.

I'm not advocating cheating, I'm simply suggesting that the rules reflect the reality of what happens on the golf course.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You are all under the mistaken belief that it is physically possible, even with photographs, reference points, and instrumentation, to place the ball in the exact place where it was prior to the movement.  iacas, for all your self-proclaimed belief and expertise in physics, I'd expect you to realize how unlikely that is.  I would further expect you to recognize the very strong probability that when a ball barely oscillates and repositions by maybe a millimeter as Tiger's did, and then the player picks it up off of the ground, and then replaces it back on the ground, it's likely to be further away from its original position than if he were to just leave it where it sits. Further, a ball that comes to rest after lateral movement through tall grass is likely to have blades of grass resting against the sides and over the top of the ball.  Unless the player replaces each blade of grass, he's likely to have a better lie when he replaces a ball directly down on top of that grass.  I've never seen a player "placing" a ball push or wiggle it down into the grass, or brush blades of grass over the top of the ball, as would be required to replicate a typical lie one finds when a ball naturally comes to rest in tall grass.  They simply place it down on the grass.  I'm not advocating cheating, I'm simply suggesting that the rules reflect the reality of what happens on the golf course.

Seconded. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
You are all under the mistaken belief that it is physically possible … to place the ball in the exact place where it was prior to the movement.  iacas, for all your self-proclaimed belief and expertise in physics, I'd expect you to realize how unlikely that is.

We're not talking about it at a molecular level. We're talking about "replacing" it well enough to satisfy the Rules of Golf. So no physics necessary. We have a standard now that is simpler than the one you proposed.

And it's not self-proclaimed; I've got more than one degree that attests to my knowledge.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

We're not talking about it at a molecular level. We're talking about "replacing" it well enough to satisfy the Rules of Golf. So no physics necessary. We have a standard now that is simpler than the one you proposed. And it's not self-proclaimed; I've got more than one degree that attests to my knowledge.

Well then you apparently agree with the standard I've proposed. Because I've simply proposed eliminating the fiction about "replacing" a ball when you're not even 100% sure that it actually moved.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Well then you apparently agree with the standard I've proposed. Because I've simply proposed eliminating the fiction about "replacing" a ball when you're not even 100% sure that it actually moved.

Not at all. If it didn't move, it didn't move. If it moved, you replace it. Yes, occasionally that means going through the motions when it "moved" but so little that you can't really put it "back" exactly. You're doing so to satisfy the Rules.

For example, you bump the ball with the toe of your putter while taking a practice stroke and it goes two feet sideways. Why try to judge whether that's a "better" position? You put it back - whether it moved an inch or a foot.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Not at all. If it didn't move, it didn't move. If it moved, you replace it. Yes, occasionally that means going through the motions when it "moved" but so little that you can't really put it "back" exactly. You're doing so to satisfy the Rules. For example, you bump the ball with the toe of your putter while taking a practice stroke and it goes two feet sideways. Why try to judge whether that's a "better" position? You put it back - whether it moved an inch or a foot.

What I've proposed really has nothing to do with whether it's a better position. I edited my original post while I was drafting it (on my phone so cut me some slack). Fourputt quoted and replied while I was editing. And besides, your example clearly wouldn't fit in my proposal anyway. Two feet isn't "so slight a movement that replacing it would be infeasible." You've already agreed with assessing a stroke whether the ball moved or oscillated so as not to put the player in an awkward position where they have to guess what a camera might show even if they didn't see it.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

You've already agreed with assessing a stroke whether the ball moved or oscillated so as not to put the player in an awkward position where they have to guess what a camera might show even if they didn't see it.

Yeah, so, if the ball moves (normal definition, not current RoG), the player puts it back. Or maybe they just say "it oscillated, so that's still a penalty, but it's exactly where it was" to spare them having to go through the motions. I don't really care. I don't give a lot of thought to Rules that don't exist.

Incidental (or accidental) movement caused when a player addresses the ball outside of a hazard should incur no penalty. The ball should be replaced unless it has moved so slightly that it cannot feasibly be "replaced" and the player has incurred no apparent advantage.

I disagree with just about all of that.

Incidental and accidental movement should be penalized. If the ball moves (RoG definition), it should be replaced, otherwise the "and the player has incurred no apparent advantage" is a judgment call that's completely unnecessary.

Movement caused when a player moves a loose impediment. Incur a one-stroke penalty if the ball moves or oscillates in any manner. Replace the ball unless the ball has moved so slightly that it cannot feasibly be replaced.

Not a fan of that either.

This would eliminate some of the more awkward judgment calls about movement vs oscillation and unfairness about incurring an additional stroke for "playing from the wrong spot" when you judge it wrong, even when the ball has moved so slightly that it can't really be replaced (ie Tiger's situation).

If Tiger had called a rules official over and said "the ball oscillated," the RO said "okay, play on," and it was later found to have moved half a dimple, he'd not have been penalized for failing to replace the ball.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yeah, so, if the ball moves (normal definition, not current RoG), the player puts it back. Or maybe they just say "it oscillated, so that's still a penalty, but it's exactly where it was" to spare them having to go through the motions. I don't really care. I don't give a lot of thought to Rules that don't exist.

If Tiger had called a rules official over and said "the ball oscillated," the RO said "okay, play on," and it was later found to have moved half a dimple, he'd not have been penalized for failing to replace the ball.

Under these facts:

Player is in the rough.  Player moves a leaf that is touching his ball.  Player sees the ball wiggle, twitch, oscillate, or whatever you want to call it, but is unsure if it has come to rest in a different position.  He's pretty sure that it didn't.  What to do?

Under the current rules.  Player decides that the ball only oscillated, so he plays on.  Camera later reveals that the ball moved a millimeter, so he is assessed a stroke for causing movement, and another stroke for playing the ball from the wrong place.  Player is really pissed about the second penalty stroke because, even if he had taken the cautious route and assessed a penalty for causing movement, he couldn't realistically replace a ball that he wasn't even sure actually moved.  Fans call for his head because he signed for an incorrect score due to an error he didn't even know was committed.

Under my proposal.

Player:  "My ball just wiggled."

Caddy:  "Did it move or just twitch?"

Player:  "It doesn't matter, I have to assess a stroke anyway."

Caddy:  "Okay, you need to replace it if you're going to take a stroke."

Player:  "I'm not even sure it moved, so how do I replace it?"

Caddy:  "Well, let's call a rules official.  If you explain what happened, and he agrees that it just twitched, then you can play it as it currently lies."

Player:  "Well I'm Brandon Gay, not Tiger Woods, and this is a Monday qualifier, so I don't have a rules official following me right now.  I have no idea whether the MetLife blimp is filming us right now.  Luckily, it doesn't matter.  If, under the facts apparent to the players in the group, the ball has moved so slightly that I can't feasibly replace it, then I can just play it as it lies with no penalty."

Caddy:  "Oh yeah. Thank God for TST and K-troop--this makes things much simpler."

Iacas:  you have stated previously that relying on salvation from a rules official is not a workable solution.  There isn't always a rules official on hand to provide cover for the player.  If the player isn't sure whether the ball even moved, then he won't have to worry about whether a camera will later show differently--or rely on a rules official on the spot to agree with him.

I would also like to hear your opinion on whether picking a ball up, and then replacing it in essentially the same spot, is likely to produce essentially the same lie under the normal practices players use on the various Tours.  (If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong.)

I disagree with just about all of that.

Incidental and accidental movement should be penalized. If the ball moves (RoG definition), it should be replaced, otherwise the "and the player has incurred no apparent advantage" is a judgment call that's completely unnecessary.

Okay, so just cut off the "and the player has incurred no apparent advantage."  If the ball has moved so slight that it can't feasibly be replaced, then there surely is no advantage to the player by the new lie.  I can't think of any factual or physical scenario where the ball would move such and be in a better position, so clearly that language was superfluous.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A completely separate idea from "how/when should a ball be replaced" is "when should a player be penalized for the movement of his ball."

When a player moves loose impediments from around his ball, he is taking an affirmative and deliberate act to improve the ground conditions around his ball.  He is "improving his lie," though attempting to do so within the rules.  In this condition, if the ball moves, oscillates, twitches, or wiggles in any way then I'm arguing he should be penalized.

What about when a player is addressing the ball and it moves?  What then?

There was a case last year (I believe) when a player had a ball sitting on a slope.  The player moved to address the ball and the ball rolled a foot or so down the hill.  So, the player is assessed a stroke unless it's "virtually certain" that he did not cause the ball to move.  I believe that's the rule, but let's just say it's unclear why the ball moved.  Did the accumulating stress on the single blade of grass simply give way at the very moment the player stepped up?  Did some barely measurable seismic force caused by the player stepping up to the ball provide the final push over the wall of inertia?  If so, is that the player "causing the ball to move" under the rules?  And should Kevin Stadler be penalized more heavily than Zach Johnson because he's more likely to alter the seismic landscape?  (IIRC, we had a substantial debate over these issues at the time.)

I would propose that it doesn't matter.  If a ball moves while a player addresses the ball, and it's clear that the player wasn't attempting to affect the ball at all, then I'm proposing that he simply be required to replace the ball without penalty.  (That is, of course, unless the ball has moved so slightly that attempting to "replace" it would be an act of fiction.)

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

k-troop, I'll make this simple for you.

I would support penalizing a player in all instances when a ball moves (dictionary). The player should then replace the ball in all instances. Completely takes judgment out of it - whether the ball "oscillates" or "moves" (RoG), there's a penalty, and the player has to pick it up and put it back down.

That would make the rule relatively simple, consistent, and clear.

I don't care if they'd effectively be trying to put the ball back in exactly the same spot. Nor do I care if they gain 2mm (just an example) of "movement" because they can't exactly replace the ball - that movement has effectively cost them a stroke already. "Replacing the ball" falls under the same "to the best of your ability" levels as we already use it - when we lift our ball from the putting green, etc. Only egregious errors are punished even with HD cameras (i.e. like that guy on the European Tour who routinely gained an inch or so by marking to the side, then putting his ball down in front).

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3804 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • I would never do the extended warranty on the $50 slow cooker.  I also routinely reject the extended service plans on those toys we buy for the grand-kids.  I do consider them on higher cost items and will be more likely to get one if the product has a lot of "Electronic Tech" that is often the problem longer-term.  I also consider my intended length of ownership & usage.  If my thought is it would get replaced in 2-3 years then why bother but if I hope to use it for 10 years then more likely to get the extension. I did buy out a lease about a year ago.  Just prior to the lease end date the tablet locked up and would not function.  I got it repaired under the initial warranty and would not have bought it out if they had not been able to fix it since IMO once electronic issues start in a car they can be hard to track down & fix.  They did fix it but when I bought out the lease I paid up for the extended warranty the would cover electronic failures because my intent is to keep that car for another 8-10 years and I just do not trust the electronics to last.  Last week the touch screen went black and was unresponsive.  It reset on the 2nd time I restarted the car but that is exactly how the last malfunction started.  I fully expect to have a claim on that on repair under the extended warranty.  I do not recall the exact cost to fix last time since I did not pay it but I think it was @ $700-$800 and I suspect that will be higher next time.
    • Have you looked at Model Local Rule F-9 Relief from Tree Roots in or Close to Fairway?  You could extend this to cover exposed rocks.  The rule is recommended to be used only for areas relatively near the fairway, a player who hits a shot 20 yards in the woods doesn't really deserve relief.   Players can always take Unplayable Ball relief, they're not required to play it from a rock or a root.  Of course, they hate to take the penalty stroke too.
    • I agree with @klineka, you're clearly doing something right.  Its always going to be a bit of a guessing game if you don't have any scoring history.  On the other hand, understanding that it takes only 54 holes to establish an actual handicap, and they have about 6 weeks in which to play and post enough scores, I don't think its at all unreasonable to require them to have an official handicap before they become eligible for prizes.  I don't know how you structure the fees for the series of competitions, but if its possible they'll play with the group without being eligible for prizes, you could consider a way to let them do that without contributing to the prize pool.
    • I run tournaments and want to put in a local rule that allows relief from tree roots and rocks that are not loose impediments. We have some really terrible lies in some of our courses in my area and nobody is getting paid enough to break clubs. Let me know if you think the verbage for this rule makes sense. Local Rule Roots and Rocks You may move your ball from a tree root or buried rock one club length for free relief no closer to the hole. However you may not use this rule to get relief from a tree, bush, boulder, or other foliage hindering your swing. Your only option here is to play it as it lies or take an unplayable for a one stroke penalty.
    • Makes sense.  Like I said, I wouldn't have been upset at their original offer either, and based on the fine print it seems like they've held up their end of the deal.  
×
×
  • 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...