USGA/R&A Re-Evaluating All Rules, Top to Bottom

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

as I've said before the only rule I don't always follow to the letter are ones where I realize once well past the tee that I need to return to the tee. I don't follow that out of respect for my fellow golfers and the pace of play. 

You can/should just not finish the hole and take stroke and handicap for that hole under the rule for "Holes not played under the rules of golf".

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=8

Or, next time play a provisional if applicable.

 

[xcott]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

You can just not finish the hole and take stroke and handicap for that hole under the rule for "Holes not played under the rules of golf".

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=8

 

Yes, I guess that's true. I like to see my score as a reflection of my skill and I think that my score would likely be much lower if I did that. If I need to re-tee, Ive lost a ball or hit OB. So taking my handicap is likely a better outcome than playing it like a lateral hazard where I 'm hitting three from a poor lie. Assuming I played to my handicap would likely be a lower score. I guess you could intimate not doing so is sandbagging. 

 

Wait, so if you're about to take an 8 on a hole, by the above rule, couldn't you intentionally play by a wrong rule and then take par plus your handicap? i mean if you are a dishonest golfer?

Edited June 20, 2016 by xcott

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

Yes, I guess that's true. I like to see my score as a reflection of my skill and I think that my score would likely be much lower if I did that. If I need to re-tee, Ive lost a ball or hit OB. So taking my handicap is likely a better outcome than playing it like a lateral hazard where I 'm hitting three from a poor lie. Assuming I played to my handicap would likely be a lower score. I guess you could intimate not doing so is sandbagging. 

Yes, distance penalties are pretty tough sometimes. A provisional is a safer choice for those situations.

 

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

Wait, so if you're about to take an 8 on a hole, by the above rule, couldn't you intentionally play by a wrong rule and then take par plus your handicap? i mean if you are a dishonest golfer?

Not really. You would need to take ESC anyway in the case of something like 12 strokes! I'm sure your partners would appreciate it if you just didn't attempt to make 12 strokes on any hole.

It's meant to prevent sand bagging and not vanity capping.

I haven't tried to figure out what happens if you take ESC and worst score on all holes what would happen to your handicap? @natureboy, a little analysis, please?

[iacas]

[Asheville]

I wonder if an argument could be made for a rewrite of:

Rule 34-2. If a referee has been appointed by the Committee, his decision is final.

1) Are there referees who've not been appointed by the Commttee?
2) Are some otherwise duly appointed referees prohibited by the Committee from making "final decisions?"
3) Also, Decision 34-3/7, Referee Determines Player Did Not Cause Ball to Move; Committee Subsequently Changes Ruling, doesn't seem to support the Rule.

[Rulesman]

The essence of the answer to 34-3/1 should be incorporated into 34-2.

[Asheville]

17 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The essence of the answer to 34-3/1 should be incorporated into 34-2.

You work on it with The R&A and I'll try with the USGA. (Of course, the USGA's not busy with anything else right now. )

[VOX]

I played golf in St Andrews last week with a couple guys who are on the R&A Rule Committee. They said that the re-write is expected to be substantial. The primary goals are to simplify the rules and speed play. They only two items that both of them felt fairly certain to be included were allowing the player to leave the flagstick in when playing a stroke on the green without penalty and allowing the player to drop on the fairway (to avoid divot holes, loose impediments that might cause the ball move if removed and other irregularities). Many other items are being considered but without much consensus yet.

The speed play goal strikes me as a bit hypocritical since the rest of the world seems to be heading towards the US handicap posting model which is one of the greatest causes of slow play.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, VOX said:

I played golf in St Andrews last week with a couple guys who are on the R&A Rule Committee. They said that the re-write is expected to be substantial. The primary goals are to simplify the rules and speed play. They only two items that both of them felt fairly certain to be included were allowing the player to leave the flagstick in when playing a stroke on the green without penalty and allowing the player to drop on the fairway (to avoid divot holes, loose impediments that might cause the ball move if removed and other irregularities).

Uhhh, I'd wager good money neither of those things becomes a Rule of Golf in the next 20 years.

P.S. You're allowed to leave the flagstick in while playing a stroke from anywhere without penalty. It's striking the flagstick with the ball when you've putted from on the green that's a problem…

[curitiba]

I believe I mentioned the Flagstick some time ago..Page 4 or 5.

How much do you want to make the wager?

The poster is correct in saying its in deep discussion.  I heard this through the grapevine many months ago and it has come up recently at a pro event where a player talked to me about it personally.

All the best.

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, curitiba said:

I believe I mentioned the Flagstick some time ago..Page 4 or 5.

No, this is what you said:

On 3/30/2016 at 6:42 PM, curitiba said:

Ill start with a simple one and let you ladies discuss.

Rule 17: The Flagstick:   I would like to see this rule changed. If I want to leave it in while making a stroke on the putting green and I hit it, so be it.

You said you'd "like" to see the rule changed. That's very different than "this is for sure going to change."

2 minutes ago, curitiba said:

How much do you want to make the wager?

People don't pay up. I would pay up, but you're a guy without even an avatar.

2 minutes ago, curitiba said:

The poster is correct in saying its in deep discussion.  I heard this through the grapevine many months ago and it has come up recently at a pro event where a player talked to me about it personally.

I doubt it.

I just asked a guy on the USGA Rules Committee. When he was done laughing, he said "no." Ditto dropping to avoid "divot holes."

[curitiba]

OK.

U da man!

We shall see in a little while who is right.  My monopoly money is on rule 17 being changed. And please make sure to call your USGA buddy to ask him/her to take back that laugh!

 

Cheers

Edited September 26, 2016 by curitiba

[Phil McGleno]

I do not see that happening either.-It would not even speed play substantially.

Paging @Fourputt @Rulesman @Martyn W and others.

[curitiba]

Well, there will be changes.  The changes wont be so drastic as to change the essense of the game.  This is why I believe the Flagstick rule will be changed.  For the amateur player, who cares if the flagstick is struck while putting.  For the elite level, I can see that it wont change much since they have caddies that take care of the flagstick.

 

SO again, changing this rule will not impact the essence of the game.

 

Finally.  I've personally heard this more than once and now someone who was at St-Andrews heard it first hand from some committee members . I don't see what there is to gain by saying this if there arent any rumblings about it.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, curitiba said:

SO again, changing this rule will not impact the essence of the game.

I disagree.

Flagsticks are made of different materials, and there aren't even rules about how thick the flagstick can be. You can literally make a flagstick 4" in diameter and it would be perfectly legal.

So why should one course have thicker, possibly "bouncier" flagsticks while another course does not? Right now this only matters if you hit the flagstick from far enough out that you didn't want to remove it. A 4.25" hole, on the other hand, basically behaves the same each time.

Leaving the flagstick in (current flagsticks), overall, provides a pretty good advantage. Balls are more likely to go in or stay close to the hole.

Leaving the flagstick in lets you smash a testy three-footer and be comforted by the fact that it's far more likely to go in.

[curitiba]

I believe we briefly discussed your point prior. IF not, I must of dreamed it.  However, the advantage or disadvantage of the flagstick being in is available for all players.

 

Ask your USGA friend if they are thinking of dropping the 5 minute ball search to 3 minutes.

 

All the best.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, curitiba said:

I believe we briefly discussed your point prior. IF not, I must of dreamed it.  However, the advantage or disadvantage of the flagstick being in is available for all players.

You're missing the point I made: the advantage would not be the same at all courses. Or even the same at each hole, if a course had different flagsticks on different holes, for example… This could fairly drastically affect things like handicaps. If one course has thicker, bouncier flagsticks and players leave them in when putting, they'll make fewer than the courses with deader flagsticks more likely to deaden the ball into the hole.

22 minutes ago, curitiba said:

Ask your USGA friend if they are thinking of dropping the 5 minute ball search to 3 minutes.

It's past midnight and changing it to two or three would be fine by me.

Going to 3 instead of 5 isn't in the same ballpark as a change as drastic as "leave the flagstick in when putting without penalty" would be.

Also, it was discussed earlier, but not like this. The earlier discussion was quite cursory.

[curitiba]

Ok, thanks for the response.

Finally, I understand your point of different flagsticks.  In all of my years playing golf, flagsticks have been pretty standard. 

 

But again. let's wait and see.  Then you can buy me a nice cold beer when the flagstick and the 5 minute rule will be changed!

 

I

Edited September 26, 2016 by curitiba