The R&A Resists Embedded Ball Through the Green

[Fourputt]

13 minutes ago, ColinL said:

I think you must have the wrong idea about the jurisdictions of the two ruling bodies.   The USGA is the ruling authority  for the USA and Mexico.  The R&A  is the ruling authority for ...... the rest of the world. 

You missed the point.  It seems like the rest of the world chooses to use the local rule for embedded ball through the green, so it seems upside down to me to have the rule for it as it is.  I know for certain that The PGA Tour, The European Tour, most clubs and tournament associations in the US all have the local rule in force as a default.  It's a permanent point on the hard card for my tournament club. 

I assume that much of the world that I'm less familiar with does the same.  Therefore, we have a rule in place that is of primary (and in my mind, minimal) benefit for a very small part of the world of golf.  It seems to me that this can only be because of the overall desire for unity under the rules, and that the only way to achieve that was to knuckle under to the R&A.  Jurisdictional boundaries are mostly irrelevant for my contention.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, ColinL said:

Giving and taking  as Iacas puts it,  suggests trading two separate matters against each other.  If you give way to our wishes  on Rule 55, we’ll accept what you want in Rule 77 no matter that there is no connection between either.      I have no inside knowledge, but I would be astonished and dismayed if that happened - outraged even.  I just can’t imagine a joint meeting  starting off “Well,  we gave way last time on 55;  we want our way on 77 this time because you owe us one."

Any “negotiation” ought to be entirely in terms of the one rule in question.  We think A, you think B.   Can we arrive at something which is acceptable to both of us?  

I am using the same word that was told to me.

At the end of the day, if the R&A and the USGA cannot reach a mutually agreed upon solution to two or more items, I don't see why it should surprise you that they negotiate or trade off. The R&A wants embedded ball through the green only via local rule, the USGA wants (I'm making this up) players to be able to move sand to identify their ball in a bunker (again, making it up, even though that's allowed), so they say "good good" and move on.

[Rulesman]

My contacts at the R&A say each individual rule is treated on its merits. There is no 'tit for tat' trade off this rule for that rule.

The RCGA also sits on the Joint Rules Committee.

[iacas]

44 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

My contacts at the R&A say each individual rule is treated on its merits. There is no 'tit for tat' trade off this rule for that rule.

Cool. Mine suggested otherwise.

Maybe you should ask your contacts why they are opposed to allowing relief for a ball plugged in the light rough. Or anywhere else through the green.

[Fourputt]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Cool. Mine suggested otherwise.

Maybe you should ask your contacts why they are opposed to allowing relief for a ball plugged in the light rough. Or anywhere else through the green.

And while you're at it, I'd like to know just how they got their way on this issue, and how they rationalize the apparent inconsistency involving the creation of a region of the golf course that has no definition and has no actual existence within any other rule of golf (that would be the term "fairway").

[Rulesman]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Cool. Mine suggested otherwise.

Maybe you should ask your contacts why they are opposed to allowing relief for a ball plugged in the light rough. Or anywhere else through the green.

 

23 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

And while you're at it, I'd like to know just how they got their way on this issue, and how they rationalize the apparent inconsistency involving the creation of a region of the golf course that has no definition and has no actual existence within any other rule of golf (that would be the term "fairway").

Why should i want to do that. I am happy with the rule as it is. It works well in the the UK where we seem to have every type of course condition you can imagine. Play the LR when needed, not always the case on links courses, even in the winter.

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rulesman

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Rulesman said:

Why should i want to do that. I am happy with the rule as it is. It works well in the the UK where we seem to have every type of course condition you can imagine. Play the LR when needed, not always the case on links courses, even in the winter.

Play the ball as it lies unless a rule says otherwise.

Because the opposite situation makes more sense: the ball doesn't embed in sandy links land, but sandy links land makes up a small percentage of the world's courses.

Flip them (make the Local Rule the ability to restrict it to closely mown areas and make the default rule "embedded through the green") and the Local Rule will be employed only a small percentage of the time (on sandy links land) rather than the vast majority of the time like it's used now - including on the European Tour (as I now know), the PGA Tour, most courses, most high-level competitions, etc.

Unless you think that the vast majority are "doing it wrong" and that a ball half submerged in the clay-based soil should be played as it lies* just because it's a yard from a place with closer cut grass than the place the ball sits.

* In some senses of the word it doesn't "lie" at all - it's embedded, not sitting upon or on top of the soil.

[Fourputt]

22 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

 

Why should i want to do that. I am happy with the rule as it is. It works well in the the UK where we seem to have every type of course condition you can imagine. Play the LR when needed, not always the case on links courses, even in the winter.

 

This is a notable departure from the logic and clear thinking that I find in most of the rules.  I just don't see how the R&A justifies this other than the irrational "I want it that way because that's how I want it." rationale.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it looks to me more like The R&A is on a power trip.

[Rulesman]

Explain why the USGA do not deem stones in bunkers to be dangerous?

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rulesman

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Explain why the USGA do not deem stones in bunkers to be dangerous?

We asked you first.

Is it your contention that the R&A wants stones to be deemed movable obstructions but the USGA does not?

How often do you have stones in dangerous situations in a bunker? Cuz I don't remember the last time I saw a stone in a bunker. I imagine it's easily another of those "minority" situations.

 

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

Explain why the USGA do not deem stones in bunkers to be dangerous?

I can't answer for them, but I can say that I've never seen a stone in a bunker that I would consider hazardous.  For that reason, it's logical for that to be an authorized local rule for the odd course with poorly conditioned bunkers.  

I feel the same for the embedded ball rule.  The current Rule 25-2 should be the local rule for those courses that need such a rule, and the local rule should be the standard so that the rest of us don't have to depend on our managers to remember to activate it.

[ColinL]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I assume that much of the world that I'm less familiar with does the same.  Therefore, we have a rule in place that is of primary  benefit for a very small part of the world of golf.  

That’s breathtaking!  You make  a huge  assumption on which you base  a “therefore .....”     

I can’t compete with that. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by ColinL

[Asheville]

Colin, as you doubtless know, parochial thinking is our "strength." 

[Fourputt]

22 minutes ago, ColinL said:

That’s breathtaking!  You make  a huge  assumption on which you base  a “therefore .....”     

I can’t compete with that. 

It was stated earlier in this thread that the R&A was insistent "for the protection of their sandy links courses".  Those courses make up a rather small percentage of the world's golf courses.  I stand by my opinion that the rest of us are paying for the benefit of the few.

[rogolf]

4 hours ago, Rulesman said:

My contacts at the R&A say each individual rule is treated on its merits. There is no 'tit for tat' trade off this rule for that rule.

The RCGA also sits on the Joint Rules Committee.

Thank you for that recognition!  :)

[ColinL]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

It was stated earlier in this thread that the R&A was insistent "for the protection of their sandy links courses".  Those courses make up a rather small percentage of the world's golf courses.  I stand by my opinion that the rest of us are paying for the benefit of the few.

Paying?  What is the cost?

[Rulesman]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

We asked you first.

Is it your contention that the R&A wants stones to be deemed movable obstructions but the USGA does not?

How often do you have stones in dangerous situations in a bunker? Cuz I don't remember the last time I saw a stone in a bunker. I imagine it's easily another of those "minority" situations.

 

 

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I can't answer for them, but I can say that I've never seen a stone in a bunker that I would consider hazardous.  For that reason, it's logical for that to be an authorized local rule for the odd course with poorly conditioned bunkers.  

I feel the same for the embedded ball rule.  The current Rule 25-2 should be the local rule for those courses that need such a rule, and the local rule should be the standard so that the rest of us don't have to depend on our managers to remember to activate it.

As opposed to the US where bunker sand seems to be 'refined' to a very uniform consistency. bunker sand over here is either the natural 'sub-soil' and therefore inherently contain many stones. Or is mined from quarries, possibly put through a crude crushing process, before being delivered with small lumps of stone.

When I say 'over here' I include the southern Europe major golfing destinations of Spain and Portugal.

Incidentally, the European, Australian and Asian Tours use the LR.

 

[Fourputt]

5 hours ago, Rulesman said:

 

As opposed to the US where bunker sand seems to be 'refined' to a very uniform consistency. bunker sand over here is either the natural 'sub-soil' and therefore inherently contain many stones. Or is mined from quarries, possibly put through a crude crushing process, before being delivered with small lumps of stone.

When I say 'over here' I include the southern Europe major golfing destinations of Spain and Portugal.

Incidentally, the European, Australian and Asian Tours use the LR.

 

If it's a case of common need for player safety, then I wouldn't have an issue with that being a stipulation in the exceptions for 13-4.  I just think that a local rule should only be employed in the exceptional situation, not the common one, and it doesn't matter which RB is holding out for what.  

I feel the same way about electronic DMD's.  Since currently they are almost universally accepted under the local rule, 14-3 should be reversed - to allow them unless prohibited by CoC or LR.

Relegating local rules to exceptional and specific needs (as they were really intended) is simply more logical and more in line with the principles of the game.  I would be opposed to making such a wholesale change, allowing such LR's as the preferred lies LR to become too prolific, as is in direct opposition to the basic principle of playing the ball as it lies.  Most LR's should only be authorized in specific cases after demonstration of a real need. 

I feel that this how all local rules should be administered, for the exceptional, not the commonplace.