Topics Not Addressed or Changed in 2019 Rules

[iacas 7,918]

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2017/rules-modernization/downloadable-material/Certain Topics or Proposals Not Addressed in the Proposed New Rules of Golf for 2019.pdf

That may be one of the easiest to read and best documents out there. It casually bats away a number of assorted complaints and things about "why didn't they change this" or "why can't I drop from a divot hole," etc.

I encourage everyone to take ten minutes to read it.

[Vinsk 1,307]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2017/rules-modernization/downloadable-material/Certain Topics or Proposals Not Addressed in the Proposed New Rules of Golf for 2019.pdf

That may be one of the easiest to read and best documents out there. It casually bats away a number of assorted complaints and things about "why didn't they change this" or "why can't I drop from a divot hole," etc.

I encourage everyone to take ten minutes to read it.

Excellent document. I guess Mackenzie  Hughes needs to read this.

PGA Tour's Mackenzie Hughes: Most changes to Rules of Golf 'missed the mark' | Golf Channel

---

The new-look Rules of Golf will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2019, but PGA Tour pro Mackenzie Hughes isn't looking...

 

 

[DaveP043 1,961]

Just now, Vinsk said:

Excellent document. I guess Mackenzie  Hughes needs to read this.

PGA Tour's Mackenzie Hughes: Most changes to Rules of Golf 'missed the mark' | Golf Channel

---

The new-look Rules of Golf will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2019, but PGA Tour pro Mackenzie Hughes isn't looking...

 

I saw that, and he's not as opposed as one of the headlines made it seem.  I also took a look at the twitter comments, and the big thing is still fairway divots.  I imagine that most of us have an issue with one or two of the rule changes, but overall I like the simpler language, I like the added illustrations, and can see legitimate reasons for most of the changes.

And I thank @iacas for the reference to the USGA  article.  Its one thing to look at that DID happen, but its nice to understand some of the things that didn't get changed.

[Missouri Swede 371]

Page 4 says they need more time to consider the penalty for a double hit.  But doesn't the final version of 10.1a remove the penalty?

[iacas 7,918]

3 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Page 4 says they need more time to consider the penalty for a double hit.  But doesn't the final version of 10.1a remove the penalty?

The USGA's document is for the "proposed" rules changes.

The R&A has a PDF available here: https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/pages/resources-centre?filters=. Basically, page 4 is eliminated. 🙂

[Vinsk 1,307]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I saw that, and he's not as opposed as one of the headlines made it seem.  I also took a look at the twitter comments, and the big thing is still fairway divots.  I imagine that most of us have an issue with one or two of the rule changes, but overall I like the simpler language, I like the added illustrations, and can see legitimate reasons for most of the changes.

And I thank @iacas for the reference to the USGA  article.  Its one thing to look at that DID happen, but its nice to understand some of the things that didn't get changed.

I didn’t see the Twitter feed but was curious if any TST members were in there. His suggestion on anchoring wouldn’t work so he definitely ‘missed the mark’ on that one.

[Rulesman 266]

The one iacas posted first is described as FINAL VERSION. The second one is described as March 2018 Update.

6. Proposals that Need More Time for Consideration is not in the second 

[iacas 7,918]

7 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The one iacas posted first is described as FINAL VERSION.

To clarify… yes, the USGA one is from 2017. The "final version" of the notes for the proposed rules.

The March 2018 one is for the actual finalized rules.

[Rulesman 266]

14 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

Page 4 says they need more time to consider the penalty for a double hit.  But doesn't the final version of 10.1a remove the penalty?

So they are not reconsidering the removal of the penalty 😃