The R&A Resists Embedded Ball Through the Green

[Rulesman]

I agree

[Martyn W]

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

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

Are you saying that embedded balls in the rough are commonplace?

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

Are you saying that embedded balls in the rough are commonplace?

Not really, but in my experience, embedded balls in the fairway aren't commonplace either.  I can't remember the last time I saw a ball embedded anywhere except in a bunker or on the putting green.  

My biggest issue with that rule as it is written is the use of the term "fairway", which is otherwise undefined in the Rules of Golf.  No other rule pertains only to "fairway", as the part of the course that players commonly call fairway is included in through the green, with no other designation used or needed.  This creates what is in my opinion, an unnecessary inconsistency in the language.  Since language and usage is considered a key part of understanding and applying the rules, I find this inconsistency puzzling.

[iacas]

10 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.

So do you honestly think the majority of bunkers worldwide have stones in them? Because if 75%+ had stones, I could see supporting the flip-flopping of the LR and the Rule. But I don't think it gets to 75%. I don't think it gets to even 50%.

Also, could you answer the previous question posed to you?

5 hours ago, Fourputt said:

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.

True. When the vast majority of high-level golf is played under a certain local rule, there's a good argument to make for making that THE rule, not a local rule.

Or when there's no harm - like range finders, which simply provide distances that are considered "knowledge" and not advice - the same kind of argument could be made.

3 hours ago, Martyn W said:

Are you saying that embedded balls in the rough are commonplace?

This time of year, where I live? Yes.

And I second @Fourputt's point: if the local rule is employed 95% of the time, or even 75% of the time, why not just make it the rule, and make the exception the local rule?

The only possible argument for that (keeping the minority the rule) is that to make the "looser" rule is to encourage bad habits. But again, that's why if it's 95% you have a much easier argument than if it was 55% (which nobody's really suggesting).

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

So do you honestly think the majority of bunkers worldwide have stones in them? Because if 75%+ had stones, I could see supporting the flip-flopping of the LR and the Rule. But I don't think it gets to 75%. I don't think it gets to even 50%.

 

How often do you play in the UK (or Europe for that matter)?

Because England Golf (and the other GB&I national unions) can ask any affiliated club to host a competition, it is included in their hard cards. I have played or officiated at scores of courses (in the UK and Europe over the years and have never encountered a course where the LR is not already in force by virtue of the course already using it.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Rulesman

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

How often do you play in the UK (or Europe for that matter)?

How does that affect the question I asked you? You've now got two questions you have yet to answer.

I've played in the UK. I didn't see any bunkers with stones in them.

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Because England Golf (and the other GB&I national unions) can ask any affiliated club to host a competition, it is included in their hard cards. I have played or officiated at scores of courses (in the UK and Europe over the years and have never encountered a course where the LR is not already in force by virtue of the course already using it.

So? I didn't ask that. I asked how many courses have bunkers with a bunch of stones in them.

Please answer the two questions posed to you.

[rogolf]

I'm with Rulesman and the ruling bodies on this one.  The Rules are the way they are because that's what the R&A and USGA have concluded they should be.  The number of clubs, tours or players implementing one of the recommended local Rules is not, imo, sufficient to make that a Rule rather than leaving it to the Committees to implement the recommended local Rule.  Imo, too many Committees just take the easy route to pacify members/players, avoiding any real examination of the need for the specific local Rule, and avoiding any confrontation.

If 85% of vehicles are speeding on a highway, the speed limit should be raised?

 

 

 

[Fourputt]

11 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I'm with Rulesman and the ruling bodies on this one.  The Rules are the way they are because that's what the R&A and USGA have concluded they should be.  The number of clubs, tours or players implementing one of the recommended local Rules is not, imo, sufficient to make that a Rule rather than leaving it to the Committees to implement the recommended local Rule.  Imo, too many Committees just take the easy route to pacify members/players, avoiding any real examination of the need for the specific local Rule, and avoiding any confrontation.

If 85% of vehicles are speeding on a highway, the speed limit should be raised?

 

 

 

You haven't addressed my point that the embedded ball rule is not only reasonable by majority implementation, but also is illogical in the context of the rules.  You seem to be arguing the side of the R&A only because they are the R&A and the ruling body that you serve under.  You have done nothing to address my attempts at presenting my case for a logical order to the process.

I restate.  If there is nothing that goes contrary to the principles of the game, and if there is also a majority of courses, clubs and associations that keep a local rule in effect, then give me a reason why the local rule shouldn't be the standard rule, and the current standard be the exception?  I pose this in particular for the 14-3 exception for electronic DMD's and for the extension of 25-2 through the green, but would be happy to discuss any other inconsistencies that seem to reverse the logical order between the local rule and the standard rule.

[rogolf]

6 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You haven't addressed my point that the embedded ball rule is not only reasonable by majority implementation, but also is illogical in the context of the rules.  You seem to be arguing the side of the R&A only because they are the R&A and the ruling body that you serve under.  You have done nothing to address my attempts at presenting my case for a logical order to the process.

I restate.  If there is nothing that goes contrary to the principles of the game, and if there is also a majority of courses, clubs and associations that keep a local rule in effect, then give me a reason why the local rule shouldn't be the standard rule, and the current standard be the exception?  I pose this in particular for the 14-3 exception for electronic DMD's and for the extension of 25-2 through the green, but would be happy to discuss any other inconsistencies that seem to reverse the logical order between the local rule and the standard rule.

Yes, I am loyal.  The Rules are what they are because that's what the both the R&A and USGA have concluded they should be.  And I trust those that are at the tables making those decisions.  They have left authority to make local Rules to the local Committees and even provided recommended wording for local Rules.

Edited March 28, 2016 by rogolf

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, rogolf said:

The Rules are the way they are because that's what the R&A and USGA have concluded they should be.

No, they haven't. The USGA wants the Rules of Golf to allow for relief from an embedded ball through the green. They've "agreed" or "negotiated" that it remain a local rule… for now…

43 minutes ago, rogolf said:

The number of clubs, tours or players implementing one of the recommended local Rules is not, imo, sufficient to make that a Rule rather than leaving it to the Committees to implement the recommended local Rule.

I wasn't making the case that it's the sole reason why, but it's a supporting reason why.

43 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Imo, too many Committees just take the easy route to pacify members/players, avoiding any real examination of the need for the specific local Rule, and avoiding any confrontation.

This includes the PGA and European Tours, as well as most every other major professional Tour?

43 minutes ago, rogolf said:

If 85% of vehicles are speeding on a highway, the speed limit should be raised?

That's not an appropriate analogy. Also, I think you'd be surprised at how speed limits are set. IIRC, they set them based on a certain % of cars speeding by a certain %.

21 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I restate.  If there is nothing that goes contrary to the principles of the game, and if there is also a majority of courses, clubs and associations that keep a local rule in effect, then give me a reason why the local rule shouldn't be the standard rule, and the current standard be the exception?  I pose this in particular for the 14-3 exception for electronic DMD's and for the extension of 25-2 through the green, but would be happy to discuss any other inconsistencies that seem to reverse the logical order between the local rule and the standard rule.

He's not going to answer your question. He doesn't seem to want to think for himself. The Rules of Golf change, and the ruling bodies in which he places all of his faith may change this very rule in 2020. Or 2024.

[Fourputt]

12 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Yes, I am loyal.  The Rules are what they are because that's what the both the R&A and USGA have concluded they should be.  And I trust those that are at the tables making those decisions.  They have left authority to make local Rules to the local Committees and even provided recommended wording for local Rules.

I serve under the USGA, but that doesn't make me blind or demand that I never question their decisions.  That's what discussion is all about, and if enough people get involved, maybe at some point it makes a difference.   

While I am devoted to following the rules as they are written when I play or when I'm asked for a ruling, I'm not a robot - I can't turn off the analytical side of my brain.  I can't help noticing when the logic doesn't add up, and then I naturally question it. 

I guess if the honchos at the R&A live with the same rigid attitude as you, I would have a difficult time as a USGA representative trying to discuss what I see as reasonable rules modifications, since you don't seem to really want to even discuss the topic in a theoretical way.

[rogolf]

18 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I serve under the USGA, but that doesn't make me blind or demand that I never question their decisions.  That's what discussion is all about, and if enough people get involved, maybe at some point it makes a difference.   

While I am devoted to following the rules as they are written when I play or when I'm asked for a ruling, I'm not a robot - I can't turn off the analytical side of my brain.  I can't help noticing when the logic doesn't add up, and then I naturally question it. 

I guess if the honchos at the R&A live with the same rigid attitude as you, I would have a difficult time as a USGA representative trying to discuss what I see as reasonable rules modifications, since you don't seem to really want to even discuss the topic in a theoretical way.

You should not draw any conclusions about the R&A Rules committee based on my personal opinions, nor the USGA Rules committee based on your opinions.  They are both free to make their own decisions and won't be impacted by our opinions, regardless of discussing opinions here. 

Btw, they tend not to read Rules forums, but do accept input from clubs, often through their golf associations.

[Rulesman]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

How does that affect the question I asked you? You've now got two questions you have yet to answer.

I've played in the UK. I didn't see any bunkers with stones in them.

So? I didn't ask that. I asked how many courses have bunkers with a bunch of stones in them.

Please answer the two questions posed to you.

I would suggest by far the majority in GB&I and continental Europe have some stones in them but what do you think?

 

Remind me of the other question.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Rulesman

[Martyn W]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

how many courses have bunkers with a bunch of stones in them.

43,627 (notwithstanding the fact than 'stone' and 'bunch' are not defined)

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Martyn W said:

43,627 (notwithstanding the fact than 'stone' and 'bunch' are not defined)

I'm not counting sand as stones, no.

The other question you can scroll back to find, @Rulesman. Early page 2 IIRC. Pretty sure it boiled down to having a good reason why not to do relief for embedded TTG. What's your reason, given just about every major tour and event plays it that way?

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

given just about every major tour and event plays it that way

Because conditions may vary significantly from country to country (European and Asian Tours), course to course and season to season, they include some local rues on the hard card. This makes life easier for the players (in particular) and officials to remember the rules from venue to venue and help avoid penalties . (Witness the pace of play problem recently where the Euro CoC was different to the USPGA). 

On 26/03/2016 at 2:19 AM, Fourputt said:

It was stated earlier in this thread that the R&A was insistent "for the protection of their sandy links courses".  

An emotive word that was not used in the original post.

It may be their reason but I haven't seen any evidence that they insisted on anything.

[Fourputt]

13 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Because conditions may vary significantly from country to country (European and Asian Tours), course to course and season to season, they include some local rues on the hard card. This makes life easier for the players (in particular) and officials to remember the rules from venue to venue and help avoid penalties . (Witness the pace of play problem recently where the Euro CoC was different to the USPGA). 

An emotive word that was not used in the original post.

It may be their reason but I haven't seen any evidence that they insisted on anything.

The assumption is that they must have been insistent, since had they not been, the USGA should have gotten their wish to change the rule.  I can't imagine any other scenario.  I know from my own meager investigation and from what Erik has stated that the USGA wants that change.  If the R&A didn't block it, then why hasn't it been done?

[Rulesman]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The assumption is that they must have been insistent, since had they not been, the USGA should have gotten their wish to change the rule.  I can't imagine any other scenario.  I know from my own meager investigation and from what Erik has stated that the USGA wants that change.  If the R&A didn't block it, then why hasn't it been done?

Perhaps the RCGA or the Euro Tour or PGA had a view. Not all agreements are arrived at in the final meeting.