sacm3bill

Of course there's still the possibility that, regardless of how open the tee sheet was at the time you booked, it might be busy by the time you play. If so, and another single or twosome show up wanting to get on, the course is going to put them with you. But in general yeah, what I do if I want to play alone is monitor the booked tee times - not necessarily on golfnow, I can use the course's booking system directly because I usually don't book a time for myself, I just show up when it looks like they have a lot of open slots.

What's worse is when someone moves over in front of me when there wasn't a bloody soul in front of them in their lane for miles. Happens to me at least once a week. If I'm going faster than the cars in the right lane and will eventually be clear of them with an opportunity to move back over and let the cars behind me by, then yeah it's a douche move for someone to be right on my bumper. But I would never intentionally go the same speed as the car next to me when I know there's someone who wants to pass, and I don't understand your rationale for doing so. It's actually a bad idea in general to cruise right next to another car no matter what speed you both are going - you're probably in their blind spot, and even if you're not you're not giving either you or them any room to maneuver in an emergency. Yeah, hands-free devices don't make you any safer unless it does voice commands. If not you still have to look at your phone while operating it, and that's the unsafe part, not the actual talking so much. But the hands-free companies had good lobbyists, so now we have the shitty law. [Edit] ...and I'm sure the counties don't mind the extra revenue from tickets and court fees.

Quote: Originally Posted by MEfree Quote: Originally Posted by sacm3bill There's nothing in the tables Dormie linked about a "significant" distance change being necessary before changing the rating and slope. Anything more than 11 yards (over the entire course, not one hole) does so. I think Dormie's link refers to UNRATED tees. I agree that it makes sense to adjust when the rated tees are positioned quite a bit different from where they were rated from, but 11 yards does not cut it for me. I would think you would need to be off by at least 100 yards given the fact that sometimes they might move the tee up, but put the pin back or vice versa. Agreed - but I interpreted the OP as saying the tees had all been moved but not yet given a new rating. Usually if some tees are moved back then others are moved forward and it all averages out - but since it sounded like *all* the tees were back I assumed they were reconfiguring the course somehow. I guess I'm unclear on the nature of the tee movement. Quote: A side note- it looks like you would come up with 2 different ratings depending on whether Dave worked back from the blues or up from the Championship: Blue + 390 yards= 72.0/133 Championship - 160 yards = 72.5/131 Yep, I assume that's why the tables specify adjusting from the closest set of rated tees (which would be the Championship in this case.)

And I have a lot more chip-ins than I thought.

There's nothing in the tables Dormie linked about a "significant" distance change being necessary before changing the rating and slope. Anything more than 11 yards (over the entire course, not one hole) does so.

I bet the percentage of celebrity divorces is a lot higher than 50... or maybe we just hear about them more?

Quote: Originally Posted by mvmac Dottie Pepper says the Solheim Cup needs fixing http://w.espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/9584827/espnw-dottie-pepper-says-solheim-cup-needs-fixing Had to pass along one of the comments from that article: Quote: I think we should change the format so the US has a chance in 2015. I propose: Friday PM - best nails. Saturday AM - prettiest hair. Saturday PM - Tweet off. Sunday AM - evening gowns. I don't think the face painting and ribbons is why they lost (they've won many times since they started doing that), but still thought that was funny.

Ok, I've had some back-and-forth with the USGA Handicap Administration - here's the summary. My original question was this: The response was that they “ would recommend utilizing Par Plus with this scenario. Essentially, in starting the hole with a penalty it would be difficult to determine your Most Likely Score ”. I replied asking if the rationale for that was to prevent sandbagging, because it didn’t seem accurate to use Par Plus since that is effectively erasing any stroke and penalty I’ve already accumulated. I also asked about the wording – i.e., “recommended” is not the same as “required”, so I asked if that meant it would be acceptable to, alternatively, estimate a most likely score. Their reply stated again that they “recommend” using Par Plus, and went on to ask “ How would one establish their most likely score from the starting point of the hole? Would the player assume that when he/she re-tees that the ball will land in the fairway? We were unable to see how to come up with a most likely score from the starting point of a hole, while starting with a penalty .” They didn’t really seem to be addressing my points, and they were assuming a lost *tee* shot which my original question was not limited to, so I tried starting over: They responded by asking me for my phone number so we could have a conversation. I prefer email since I’m much better at organizing my thoughts that way, and don’t care enough about this issue to spend any more of my time on it. And I was frustrated that they couldn’t respond with a simple answer over email, and was skeptical a phone call would be any more productive. So I replied: So, technically their answer was to use Par Plus, at least on tee shots, even if you've already jacked a couple OB. However we still don't have an answer as to *why* that is the recommended method, whether “recommended” means the same as “required”, or whether the procedure is the same if the 2nd or 3rd shots (as opposed to the tee shot) were OB.

Yeah, not a flattering article, especially the part where rules officials allowed players to use the practice green during the Colonial round, Overton assumed that somehow meant *all* rules were off the table, so blames officials for his DQ for use of a training aid. Then says that DQ was what kept him out of the PGA Championship. No Jeff, being 154th in OWGR (when you needed to be top 100), and being 113 in the money standings (when you needed to be top 70) is what kept you out. In the words of Jim Colbert quoted at the end of that article, "Play better."

They actually provide that on the site - in each Code's page there's a link to "Principal Changes". http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOnePrincipalChanges.html http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoPrincipalChanges.html

Thanks!

Something I find interesting about the rule we're discussing, which is 14-4: "If a player’s club strikes the ball more than once in the course of a stroke , the player must count the stroke and add a penalty stroke , making two strokes in all." When playing a bunker shot, the club usually strikes only the sand, not the ball. So based on the wording above, I wouldn't think hitting the ball with your club as it comes out of the sand would be a penalty. As I understand it though, it is in fact a penalty - but I only know that through seeing or hearing about examples of it being assessed. If I only had the wording of the rule to go by, I would've guessed no penalty. Seems to me the wording could be improved. (Unless there's a decision I'm missing that covers it...)

That would drive me crazy until I got to the bottom of it, but then I'm a numbers nerd. (And it might be only 0.2 off now, but if there's an error who knows how big it could get at any given time.)

I'm going to start using it to describe my playing partners' bad shots. I'm going to be reeeaaal popular.

Exactly. It's like he's saying, "Doesn't he know it would've been better to have MADE that putt instead of missing it?!"

My wife and I love to parrot him when he says "What a misTAKE!" He says that a lot ...

I agree with what you wrote there. Where I disagree with Fourputt is that I don't think you *also* have the option of scoring it as an unplayed hole. To sum up: - I think the hole must be scored as unfinished. - bkuehn thinks the hole must be scored as unplayed. - Fourputt thinks you have the option of either. Email to USGA sent, we'll see what they have to say. I'd be interested in perusing that thread if you have a link - perhaps it will enlighten me.

You said one of the options was to pick up and not finish the hole, and estimate what you would've most likely scored if you had finished: bkuehn said if you quit in the middle of a hole, it's not an unfinished hole, it's an unplayed hole and you'd take par + handicap strokes: Those statements cannot both be true.

Indeed, in fact if the man had won you could say there was an asterisk next to his name if you felt the women's tees had not been moved *up* enough. My main point though is that you can never know for sure that you've properly equalized men and women, so I'd prefer if they didn't try. (By using two-person male/female teams, for example.)

Yep, well aware of that. I'm just trying to figure out what would be an example of an "unfinished hole" (other than a conceded stroke, since the rule above distinguishes the two), where you would estimate your most likely score, that *is* still played under the "principles of the rules of golf" and is therefore not covered under the "unplayed hole" rule? But exercising the rule in match play is all about conceded strokes. The rule differentiates between conceded strokes and unfinished holes. So what then constitutes an unfinished hole, other than conceded strokes? This is the opposite of what Fourputt wrote - he said you *do* have a choice. You can't both be right. You're assuming/implying that the handicap system would rather err on the side of giving someone too few strokes than too many. I think it's more likely that the handicap system is simply trying to ensure your handicap is *accurate*. If that's the case then it makes no sense to discard the 2 OB strokes you took and just take a lower score of par + handicap. I'm not saying I'm right about all this, just saying what makes the most sense to me. Maybe this deserves a letter to the USGA for clarification.

To be clear, that's what I'm saying. Fourputt is saying that no, you also have the option of just taking par + any handicap strokes for that hole.

First, I didn't correct you, I only challenged what you wrote. That's why I was careful to use phrases like "I wouldn't think...", and "It seems..." Second, so you're saying that if someone doesn't go back and hit again on a lost ball then they are not playing under the principles of the rules of golf? Well, isn't the same true if they fail to hole out a 6" putt? Yet you wouldn't take par + handicap strokes in that scenario - you'd take whatever you're lying before the putt and add one. How do you (or the USGA if their position is indeed what you claim) rationalize taking par + handicap if you've started playing a hole and then quit after already racking up a bunch of strokes? (I'm not saying a lack of a rationale refutes your argument, I'm just curious if there is one.)

Courses don't have the authority to change the rules of golf like that (not even with a local rule), but if you're playing in a league or tournament where everyone else is doing it, you'll obviously have to as well. If you're not playing in a league or tournament, but need to adhere to this policy to not get kicked off the course, at least add 2 strokes. That would be closer to doing it right than only adding one. (Since if you did it right by going back and replaying your previous shot, then even assuming you didn't lose that one, you'd be laying 2 more than you originally were, not 1 more.)

The first option is for when you haven't played the hole at all - I wouldn't think you can exercise that option once you've started playing the hole. After all, if you've already lost a ball and would be hitting 3 off the tee, then realistically you'd end up with a lot worse than par + handicap strokes. Not that a stroke or two on any single hole matters much in the grand scheme of things, but technically it seems you should always use the option of estimating the unfinished hole once you've started it, especially if you're in trouble off the tee. It also seems that the most accurate way of estimating would be to drop, add 2 penalty strokes, and actually finish the hole.

No kidding. I really regret defending this guy earlier. That's what I get for giving people the benefit of the doubt.