sacm3bill

What's the "This" that you're agreeing with? I'm confused because what you quoted me saying doesn't seem to relate to what you wrote. (There's nothing about "randomly dropping a ball" or "finishing the hole" in what you quoted.)

Agreed, but not sure what point you're making. In the scenario that we've been discussing in this thread (lost tee shot with no provisional, and you don't go back to the tee), my contention is that not playing out the hole at that point is the equivalent of picking up and putting the ball in your pocket. If you agree with that, then it seems you've changed your stance. If you don't agree with that, then I'm still not sure why. How did an illegal drop creep into this discussion? Are you referring to my email to USGA, where I asked about playing a ball from the area where the original ball was lost? If so, I'd be playing that ball in order to estimate as accurately as possible what my most likely score would be, not to actually get a score under the rules of golf. I figure that holing out and adding 2 strokes to the total is going to be a heck of a lot closer to my most likely score than taking par plus would be, since doing the latter totally discounts the stroke and distance I've already accumulated. But for the sake of discussion, let's say I agreed that holing out from a random spot and adding two is not an option. (Turtleback, you make a good point about that being practice on the course.) Even in that case, the fact remains that I've started the hole. It is not an unplayed hole, and it's not a hole "not played under the principles of the rules of golf", since I stopped playing before doing anything illegal. It's clearly (in my mind) an unfinished hole, therefore 4-1 should apply.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fourputt Quote: Originally Posted by sacm3bill Quote: Originally Posted by Fourputt What I have said, over and over and over, is that I follow the word of the handicap manual. It is quite specific about how different situations are supposed to be treated. When taking a conceded putt, you record the most likely score, PER THE MANUAL. None of what I've said in this thread is opinion. It's based on what the USGA has published. I would disagree that it's based on what's published. What's published describes how to proceed for an "unplayed" hole vs "unfinished or not played under the principles of golf" hole. The single response we have from the USGA hotline is an interpretation of what "unplayed" means. Most if not all people, if they had no knowledge of that response, would logically assume that once you've made a stroke at the ball on the tee, you've started the hole and it would therefore logically be unfinished, not unplayed. I think it's possible the email hotline response is contrary to what most USGA representatives would say. Hotline responses don't carry the same weight as Decisions do. Maybe that's why they often state that the responses are not to be shared in public forums. (I never was told that when they responded to me, but I still tried to only summarize what they had said, not copy and paste it.) The problem is that the manual doesn't contemplate picking up after the tee shot. It sees an unfinished hole as one in which a certain part of the hole (usually only a stroke or two) is conceded. Quitting a hole while theoretically standing on the tee and already lying lying 2 or 4 isn't a consideration because that is not within the normal parameters of the Rules of Golf. The principles of the rules state that you play your ball from tee to hole. Not doing so is not following the principles of the rules, and thus it isn't really covered by the handicap manual, unless you use the clause: Quote: 4-2. Holes Not Played or Not Played Under The Principles of The Rules of Golf If a player does not play a hole or plays it other than under the principles of the Rules of Golf (except for preferred lies ), the score recorded for that hole for handicap purposes must be par plus any handicap strokes the player is entitled to receive on that hole. This hole score, when recorded, should be preceded by an "X." You all are agreeing that this doesn't apply. I disagree. I'm going to be traveling in about a half hour, so I won't be a further participant before Sunday at the soonest. I wish you all good luck trying to find a consensus. I don't see how you can state "the manual doesn't contemplate picking up after the tee shot". Just because it doesn't happen to use that as an example doesn't mean it wasn't contemplated. And you can't use the argument that "not playing your ball from tee to hole is not following the principle of the rules", because you're not playing the ball from tee to hole when you concede putts, yet it's universally accepted to count that as an unfinished hole, not a hole "not played under the principles of the rules". So you shoot your own argument in the foot when you try to use the "not played under the principles of the rules" clause to any situation where you don't hole out, because that clearly doesn't apply to the conceded putt scenario. And the other problem with saying "the manual doesn't contemplate picking up after the tee shot" is that if that were true, then the manual would need to provide some definition of what *was* contemplated. I.e., at what point have you played "enough" of the hole that you can call it unfinished and not unplayed? That's been asked several times in this thread, and in my question to the USGA hotline, and no one has given any kind of answer. I just reread the relevant section of the manual for the dozenth time just to make sure I wasn't missing something. Here's what it says, plainly and simply: Quote: 4-1. Unfinished Holes and Conceded Strokes A player who starts, but does not complete a hole or is conceded a stroke must record for handicap purposes the most likely score. I don't see how there's any way to interpret that other than as long as you have been playing under the principles of the rules prior to the point where you stop playing the hole, it's an unfinished hole. In fact, note that it even makes a distinction between conceding a stroke and otherwise not completing a hole. (I bolded the "or" to highlight that.) So I also can't see how you can say that the manual states that it's an unfinished hole only when "a certain part of the hole (usually only a stroke or two) is conceded". The manual clearly indicates there are other ways to have an unfinished hole.

I would disagree that it's based on what's published. What's published describes how to proceed for an "unplayed" hole vs "unfinished or not played under the principles of golf" hole. The single response we have from the USGA hotline is an interpretation of what "unplayed" means. Most if not all people, if they had no knowledge of that response, would logically assume that once you've made a stroke at the ball on the tee, you've started the hole and it would therefore logically be unfinished, not unplayed. I think it's possible the email hotline response is contrary to what most USGA representatives would say. Hotline responses don't carry the same weight as Decisions do. Maybe that's why they often state that the responses are not to be shared in public forums. (I never was told that when they responded to me, but I still tried to only summarize what they had said, not copy and paste it.)

No, that's not what Fourputt was saying, or would say. We were talking about a specific scenario where you had a lost ball off the tee with no provisional, and decided to pick up instead of going back to the tee. Fourputt considers that an unplayed hole (based on a USGA response). I'm sure Fourputt, the USGA, and everyone else considers a gimme putt an unfinished hole. That being said, one of the many problems with that position is determining at what point a hole goes from being unplayed to unfinished. That's a question I've not seen answered by anyone, including the USGA even when directly asked that question.

Oops, just noticed I misspoke there and it's too late to edit the original. What I meant to say was, "I don't see how not taking par plus on a hole where you've already jacked a ball or two out of bounds is sandbagging..."

I'd just point out that there is no one stance, given that Erik has talked to representatives who say the opposite of what the "hotline" people told me. It's unfortunate that the hotline people ignored my specific questions about their rationale and instead fell back on stock responses. At one point I even asked them if the rationale was to prevent sandbagging (one explanation that has been suggested by sandtrap members), and they ignored that question too. But I don't see how taking par plus on a hole where you've already jacked a ball or two out of bounds is sandbagging anyway - you really did jack a ball or two out of bounds, so it's not like reflecting that in your score is somehow dishonest. I agree that in the grand scheme it doesn't matter since ESC comes into play fairly quickly.

In MEfree's defense I didn't take his post that way. He was just saying you're the only one he knows dong it the way that particular response from USGA said to do it.

Exactly. It's not any more reasonable to predict par+handicap for an unplayed hole as it is to predict par+handicap+2 for an unfinished hole where you're still on the tee box after your first ball is OB. Yep. In my experience writing to the hotline, it's been difficult to communicate, and to get them to answer the questions I've asked if it involved more than just quoting the manual. It doesn't seem that the hotline is necessarily manned by experts. Certainly if everyone at the USGA is saying the same thing, all one can do is follow whatever they say, even if it doesn't make sense. But in this case there are apparently conflicting viewpoints within the ranks. For anyone who's interested and missed it the first time, I have a synopsis of my back-and-forth with the USGA on this issue here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/68856/stroke-and-distance-vs-pace-of-play/36#post_882167 (One of my unanswered questions to the USGA was the one Erik brought up: "At what point do you decide you are far enough into the hole such that it qualifies as unfinished, instead of unplayed?")

As far as that goes, the answer is going to depend on the person. I'd rather pay by the ball since I'm a slow, methodical range hitter. It would be less economical for me to pay per time slice, but it would be more economical for a scrape-and-hit, scrape-and-hit practicer.

Re the last part being debatable: I guess, but I bet if a poll was done the overwhelming majority would rather drive a cart around a golf course selling beverages than work in fast food. Re the rest, ok. But like I said before, I wasn't trying to say it's ok to not tip the cart girl, just agreeing with those saying it's kind of strange that the expectation is to tip them as much as if they were a food server in a restaurant Right, I covered that when I said: Anyway: That's true, but it's an interesting irony that the same physical characteristics that make guys hit on her are the same characteristics that get her bigger tips. Absolutely. A great example of that is Starbucks vs McD's. The person at the cash register is doing the exact same thing at both companies, yet there's a tip jar at the Starbucks and not at McD's. Yes, the tips are shared among everyone, including those making the food/drinks, but even when you consider them, the question remains: What is it about the one where tips are expected but the other is not? Not really trying to make a point, just an observation.

But face it, fast food employees also work harder than cart girls. Food servers do more work than fast food employees, but they are compensated in the form of tips. Fast food workers work harder than cart girls, but they are compensated in the form of higher base pay. I guess the above can be debated, but I don't think you can debate that driving around in a cart all day, even if the weather isn't ideal, is a lot easier than fast food work. That's my main point.

A typical McDonald's employee spends 7 or 8 hours on their feet in a hot, greasy kitchen environment and/or has to deal with a bunch of customers who aren't out necessarily in the good moods that most people out playing golf are in. Yet, again, they aren't tipped. And on chilly days there aren't going to be as many golfers out there to sell to in the first place. Not saying either job is easy, and not saying you shouldn't tip the cart girl, just saying I think there are good points being raised on both sides here.

Yeah... I'm probably too insensitive in general, but by the same token there are a lot of people who are *overly* sensitive. (Unfortunately most overly sensitive people feel their amount of sensitivity is exactly the right amount, so anything less is insensitive.)

Yeah, that's how I took it as well. The rates they're offering are over 50% off of the regular rates, so it seems they're losing money on this, not "profiting from a tragedy". They just wanted to commemorate the day. It was probably a PR error to just give a discount instead of charging the regular rate and donating the difference to some charity or foundation (in fact they have since said that they will honor the discount *and* donate the difference to the 9/11 memorial fund), but neither one seems in bad taste to me.

QFT.

So why do they do it? I always thought it was to save time. (No need to hit a provisional if you have the opportunity to drop, and more likely to give up the search early.) It may not be in accordance with the definition of a lateral hazard, but it's not silliness to improve pace of play, is it?

Hi all, nice to be part of the group (thanks for the invite Brandon). I'm up for an outing any time. I'm in Sacramento and concur with most of the reviews of the area courses, and will add a couple things: Turkey Creek has always been glacially slow. I haven't played there in a couple years but it still has that reputation. Haggin Oaks is one of my favorite courses. (They have two courses there - I'm referring to the Alister Mackenzie, not Arcade Creek. The latter is cheaper but very boring.) The Mackenzie course has IMO a really good variety of holes, and prices are much more reasonable now that they've unbundled the cart and provide walking rates. They've also recently instituted a pace of play policy where they actually have workers stationed at a couple holes to monitor things. Darkhorse is my favorite course in the area. It's up near Auburn, another 50 minutes north of the downtown Sac, but everything about it is top notch: Design, condition, pace, value ($30 deals including cart are readily available), and customer service. Difficult but fair if you play the correct tees.

Guess who just became my favorite golfer on the Tour.

Not sure if that's true, would have to do the math, but... Just to be clear to those who might not have checked out that link, they aren't all reset to zero - each player gets their points reset based on the standings at the time. If the points were not reset in some way, someone could win it all without even playing in the last tournament (if they had a big enough lead). I think that happened in the early years of the Cup, so they've tweaked it since then to try to find a balance between that, and still rewarding those with more points going into the final tournament. Also, with the current system anyone in the last tournament has a mathematical chance of winning the cup. (Which I guess adds some excitement.) However the top 5 control their own destiny in that if any of them win the final, they win the cup regardless of how well anyone else plays. There's a thread or two somewhere discussing the pros and cons of the system - might be of interest.

Yep, what GD said, plus I'll add that the new laws were *not* "semantics for things we already knew", in the sense that not many people knew that club face determined starting direction and swing path determined flight path - most believed the opposite until recent years. Agreed, you need to filter out the cockiness to enjoy the article, but once you do that it's interesting.

I think Brandel has a lot of good insights in that article, but this is a tad disingenuous, at best:

That's all fine, but that's not what we're talking about. You said this: You didn't say anything there about being stuck behind a slow guy. You said you intentionally go the same speed as the guy next to you, Don't do that please.

I hear ya, but in my experience, no matter how clueless the desk person is they're going to try to put singles and twosomes together.

Actually you can negate *all* the blind spots. But that doesn't mean the guy next to you knows how to do that. And even he does, you're still taking away that emergency maneuvering option from both of you.