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

[jsgolfer]

On April 6, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Rulesman said:

Some years ago in the Ryder Cup (I think) Faldo had a long put. His caddie, Fanny Sunesson, couldn't get the flagstick out and had to tug with two hands. She just got it out as the ball slipped past the hole.

Something similar likes this happened in a group I was in, the flagstick was lodged into the hole pretty good and as the ball is rolling towards the hole the guy with two hands pulls the flag and the cup comes out and the ball hits it.  No big deal as it was in a scramble but what is the correct ruling if you were playing in a tournament?

[Asheville]

Two Decisions might shed some light:

17/7 Hole-Liner Pulled Out by Flagstick Attendant and Ball Falls into Unlined Hole
Q. A flagstick attendant removes the flagstick and, in the process, pulls out the hole-liner. The player's ball rolls into the unlined hole. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty and the ball is holed. A hole need not contain a lining - see Definition of "Hole."

17/8 Ball Strikes Hole-Liner Pulled Out with Flagstick
Q. A player played a stroke from the putting green. The ball struck the hole-liner, which had stuck to the bottom of the flagstick and had come out of the hole when the person attending the flagstick removed the flagstick. Is there any penalty?

A. No. A hole-liner is an outside agency. Accordingly, if the hole-liner was moving when the ball struck it, the stroke is canceled and the ball must be replaced - Rule 19-1b. If the hole-liner was not moving, the ball must be played as it lies - Rule 19-1. In case of doubt, the ball must be played as it lies.

[jsgolfer]

9 hours ago, Asheville said:

Two Decisions might shed some light:

17/7 Hole-Liner Pulled Out by Flagstick Attendant and Ball Falls into Unlined Hole
Q. A flagstick attendant removes the flagstick and, in the process, pulls out the hole-liner. The player's ball rolls into the unlined hole. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty and the ball is holed. A hole need not contain a lining - see Definition of "Hole."

17/8 Ball Strikes Hole-Liner Pulled Out with Flagstick
Q. A player played a stroke from the putting green. The ball struck the hole-liner, which had stuck to the bottom of the flagstick and had come out of the hole when the person attending the flagstick removed the flagstick. Is there any penalty?

A. No. A hole-liner is an outside agency. Accordingly, if the hole-liner was moving when the ball struck it, the stroke is canceled and the ball must be replaced - Rule 19-1b. If the hole-liner was not moving, the ball must be played as it lies - Rule 19-1. In case of doubt, the ball must be played as it lies.

Thank you

[Howling Coyote]

I wish they would restructure the rules.  Not change them per say, but alter how they are organized so that they make more sense.  One organization would be based on ground.  In golf there are 5 grounds where the rules are different. 1) teeing ground, 2) putting green, 3) hazards, 4) out of bounds, and 5) through the green.  Organize them around these and it might make more sense.

 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Howling Coyote said:

I wish they would restructure the rules.  Not change them per say, but alter how they are organized so that they make more sense.  One organization would be based on ground.  In golf there are 5 grounds where the rules are different. 1) teeing ground, 2) putting green, 3) hazards, 4) out of bounds, and 5) through the green.  Organize them around these and it might make more sense.

I disagree that this would be simpler. You can't really make five basic rules to cover the five areas, because you'll have not only a lot of overlap (what if you hit a ball from the teeing ground OB? Some teeing grounds are also through the green, just not THE teeing ground) and a lot of repetition (you can incur similar penalties for doing the same kinds of things, or get relief, or whatever, from many of those areas).

[Howling Coyote]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree that this would be simpler. You can't really make five basic rules to cover the five areas, because you'll have not only a lot of overlap (what if you hit a ball from the teeing ground OB? Some teeing grounds are also through the green, just not THE teeing ground) and a lot of repetition (you can incur similar penalties for doing the same kinds of things, or get relief, or whatever, from many of those areas).

I neither agree nor disagree.  I would have to see a draft of these new rules.  Obviously there still would need to be rules about equipment, order of play, etc.  Also a lot of reviews to get it right.

[Howling Coyote]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I disagree that this would be simpler. You can't really make five basic rules to cover the five areas, because you'll have not only a lot of overlap (what if you hit a ball from the teeing ground OB? Some teeing grounds are also through the green, just not THE teeing ground) and a lot of repetition (you can incur similar penalties for doing the same kinds of things, or get relief, or whatever, from many of those areas).

There is one rule I would like to change.  Say your ball landed on the fairway and are about 90 yards from the green (par 4 hole).  Your second shot is perfect.  Your ball is going straight for the green.  Suddenly you see this shiny thing fly across the fairway.  Your ball hits this and is deflected out of bounds.  The shiny thing turns out to be an iron, flung from #17 tee because that player had a fit and tossed his club.

According to rule 19-1 Ball in motion deflected or Stopped.  If a player's ball in motion is accidently deflected or stopped by any outside, it is the rub of the green, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies, except ...

Now the 2 exceptions pertain to the ball landing on the moving agency and don't apply to the above situation.  Also the bit about there being no penalty is not true.  Not only did you lose position and stroke, but also a stroke penalty for going out of bounds.  Yet you did nothing wrong.

[Rulesman]

5 minutes ago, Howling Coyote said:

 Yet you did nothing wrong.

Who told you life or golf was fair?

[Howling Coyote]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

Who told you life or golf was fair?

I think it was Mike boatright who in a different thread (Should the act of "dropping" be eliminated in favor of always placing?) stated ...

"Dropping the ball is almost always for relief in pga tournaments ... Hitting a great tee shot down the middle and find it lands in a divot full of sand is bad luck but is also been up for discussion for a free drop because hitting a fairway shouldn't penalize you..."

I would also ask why is it that one gets free relief from a gopher hole or cart path?

I would specifically ask that the rule be changed to say.. if the ball is deflected out of bounds or into a water hazard, a free drop should be permitted, if and only if the outside moving agency was man-made.

My reason would be, 1) it fits with the golf philosophy that golf is a game of nature and no or less relief should be granted for natural agencies/obstructions; 2) man-made or artificial agencies/obstruction are more readily subject to human influence (i.e. cheating).

Example, say I trained a bird to fly out and deflect a ball solely to help a golfer win a tournament?  It could happen, but not likely.  It would take a lot of training and the bird would have to fly out right on cue.  Too many variables, impossible I would say.

However, say a quadcopter(drone) with a camera covering a golfing event was hovering behind a tree and not immediately visible.  Then a pro hits his shot for the green and at the last moment the quadcopter flies out and deflects the ball into a lateral water hazard.    The golfer ends up loses the match by a stroke.  Worse yet later the golfer gets a bill for the damage to quadcopter.   But he also discovers disturbing evidence that the operator of the quadcopter was friends with his opponent.  He can't prove intent, but I would argue, why don't we take temptation off the table.

[Fourputt]

6 hours ago, Howling Coyote said:

I wish they would restructure the rules.  Not change them per say, but alter how they are organized so that they make more sense.  One organization would be based on ground.  In golf there are 5 grounds where the rules are different. 1) teeing ground, 2) putting green, 3) hazards, 4) out of bounds, and 5) through the green.  Organize them around these and it might make more sense.

 

The rules are organized generally in the order in which you would most likely need them during play of a hole.  They start with things that should be of most concern before play begins, like mode of play equipment, etc.  Then they progress to the teeing ground, playing the ball, the putting green, then to how to address actions on the ball, and relief procedures.  

Note that procedures which require the player to play his ball from a location not achieved by a stroke are generally the last playing rules defined (rules 24-28), because these are considered extenuating circumstances and should be a player's last resort when playing the ball as it lies is no longer a reasonable possibility.  Even then the first of those relief situations are those which require the player to drop the same ball, only moving on to freely substituting a new ball when he is already receiving a penalty stroke (Rules 26, 27, and 28).  This is keeping as closely as possible to the basic principle of playing one ball from tee to hole and not touching it or moving it by any means other than a stroke.  The rules do all that is possible to hold the player to that standard.

[Rulesman]

9 hours ago, Howling Coyote said:

I would specifically ask that the rule be changed to say.. if the ball is deflected out of bounds or into a water hazard, a free drop should be permitted, if and only if the outside moving agency was man-made.

 

And if the ball was deflected into the hole a free drop should be required, if and only if the outside moving agency was man-made?

[Howling Coyote]

14 hours ago, Rulesman said:

And if the ball was deflected into the hole a free drop should be required, if and only if the outside moving agency was man-made?

That was not on my list or the intent of the rule change I had in mind.  But now that you mentioned it, and after thinking about it, I must alter my position to be..

ANY deflection or stopping of a ball in motion by an outside moving agency that is artificial or man made, the shot will be nullified (both the stroke and position) and the ball returned to its position prior to the shot.

So if you are making an approach shot to the green-and after hitting- a golf cart darts out.  Then your ball hits the roof, takes a big bounce and lands into the bottom of the cup, the shot does not count and must be redone.

[iacas]

20 hours ago, Howling Coyote said:

That was not on my list or the intent of the rule change I had in mind.  But now that you mentioned it, and after thinking about it, I must alter my position to be..

ANY deflection or stopping of a ball in motion by an outside moving agency that is artificial or man made, the shot will be nullified (both the stroke and position) and the ball returned to its position prior to the shot.

So if you are making an approach shot to the green-and after hitting- a golf cart darts out.  Then your ball hits the roof, takes a big bounce and lands into the bottom of the cup, the shot does not count and must be redone.

Why make the distinction between man-made outside agencies? What if a ball hits a dog's collar? What then?

What if you hit a ball and it hits someone's golf cart in another fairway? Why should you get to replay the shot?

[ghalfaire]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 6:59 PM, David in FL said:

Allow spike marks on the green to be repaired, as pitch marks are.

 

I like this but have to say for the recreational golfer this isn't much of a problem with the advent of "plastic spikes".   But I have never understood why the rules allows fixing ball marks but not spike marks.

[Rulesman]

6 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I like this but have to say for the recreational golfer this isn't much of a problem with the advent of "plastic spikes".   But I have never understood why the rules allows fixing ball marks but not spike marks.

USGA Position on Spikemarks

Q.What is the USGA position on spikemarks?

A.The Rules of Golf are based on two fundamental principles: (1) play the ball as it lies and (2) play the course as you find it. Permitting the repair of spike marks on a player`s line of play or putt would be contrary to these fundamental principles. Rule 16-1c permits the repair of old hole plugs and ball marks but does not permit the repair of spike damage or other irregularities of surface on the putting green if they are on a player`s line of play or putt or might assist him in his subsequent play of the hole. The distinction lies in the fact that old hole plugs and ball marks are easily identifiable as such, whereas it is impossible to differentiate between spike damage and other irregularities of surface on the putting green. Permitting the repair of spike marks would also inevitably lead to a slower place of play. Please note that proper etiquette recommends that damage to the putting green caused by golf shoe spikes be repaired on completion of the hole by all players, just as a player should fill up and smooth over all holes and footprints made by him before leaving a bunker. We feel that improved education and players` consideration for others rather than a change in the Rules of Golf is the proper solution to the problem.

[boogielicious]

13 hours ago, Rulesman said:

USGA Position on Spikemarks

Q.What is the USGA position on spikemarks?

A.The Rules of Golf are based on two fundamental principles: (1) play the ball as it lies and (2) play the course as you find it. Permitting the repair of spike marks on a player`s line of play or putt would be contrary to these fundamental principles. Rule 16-1c permits the repair of old hole plugs and ball marks but does not permit the repair of spike damage or other irregularities of surface on the putting green if they are on a player`s line of play or putt or might assist him in his subsequent play of the hole. The distinction lies in the fact that old hole plugs and ball marks are easily identifiable as such, whereas it is impossible to differentiate between spike damage and other irregularities of surface on the putting green. Permitting the repair of spike marks would also inevitably lead to a slower place of play. Please note that proper etiquette recommends that damage to the putting green caused by golf shoe spikes be repaired on completion of the hole by all players, just as a player should fill up and smooth over all holes and footprints made by him before leaving a bunker. We feel that improved education and players` consideration for others rather than a change in the Rules of Golf is the proper solution to the problem.

I think it is a bit of "The argument of the beard" here. People are only going to fix what is on their line generally and should fix there own pitch mark. When was the old pitch mark made? How long does an old pitch mark or spike mark need to be untended before it becomes part of the "natural irregularity" of the green? Are we all forensic experts on impact marks and the nature of the cause?

I don't think it will slow play down at all. No one really fixes pitch or spike marks after they finish the hole. That would slow down play. I think it would help the green repair in general. I fix pitch marks while waiting for others on the green or when the are getting ready to chip on

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

 

I don't think it will slow play down at all. No one really fixes pitch or spike marks after they finish the hole. That would slow down play. I think it would help the green repair in general. I fix pitch marks while waiting for others on the green or when the are getting ready to chip on

Regardless, that has always been the main reasoning behind it.  Back in the days of steel spikes, the area around the pin was a sea of little holes by noon on any given day.  Even though 95% of those marks would have no effect on a ball, players would have felt obligated to clean up anything on their intended line, and even for as short a putt as 10 feet, that would be a significant gardening effort, and result in excessive delay.

I will fix pitch marks any time that I see them, whether walking onto the green, while waiting for others to putt, or when exiting the green.  I'm just as likely to do it when leaving, simply because I will be less focused on my own shot and more likely to notice a stray pitch mark.  It only takes a few seconds to bend over and push it together, and even if there are players waiting, it sets an example of good etiquette, and most players are likely to appreciate the effort.

[saevel25]

22 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I will fix pitch marks any time that I see them, whether walking onto the green, while waiting for others to putt, or when exiting the green. 

Ditto