malincanada

D'oh! I focused on the 'ball in play' part and completely missed the 'or' meaning that part (ii) doesn't care whether there's a ball in play or not. Definitely agree that clause (ii) is more than sufficient and definitely agree with you iacas that I would ensure the club was removed before the second drop. In fact, if I was already near him, having helped search for the ball, I hope I'd be quick enough to say "Let me just move that club for you" before the first drop! :)

Someone on my club's Facebook page just asked: "If you measure two club lengths from an unplayable lie, and leave the club on the ground, and the ball touches it when it's dropped, is that a penalty" I pointed him towards Rule 20-2a which clearly specifies that the ball must be re-dropped, but what I didn't find anywhere in the rule or the decisions was an explicit rule about the following scenario: I declare an unplayable lie and mark out two club lengths which gets me back to cut grass, but only just a couple of feet outside the deep rough I was in. I 'accidentally' leave the club lying along the edge of the rough. Now, if I drop it and it lands and stays put, all is fine, but if it happens to bounce in the direction of the rough it will probably hit the club and I get to re-drop. After Rule 20-2a there is a parenthesized sentence saying: "(Taking action to influence position or movement of ball - see Rule 1-2)" but with no further clarification as to when that would apply and Rule 1-2 specifically applies to a 'Ball in Play' which the ball isn't yet because it hasn't been correctly dropped. Is there a decision that I am missing here or is this a bit of a gap? I'm certainly not saying that the person using the club as a 'block' to the rough should escape penalty, I'm just struggling to justify the penalty based on the Rules/Decisions that I'm reading.

I'm starting to think that you 'poll' wasn't a genuine attempt to gain everybody's view on the one specific question that you asked. It's almost as though you were waiting for someone to reply 'YES' so that you could gleefully jump on them with all your additional 'reasoning'! Tsk tsk. So in answer to your NEW questions... 1. No. You didn't do anything illegal. I actually don't think any of the penalties listed in the rules of golf relate to legality. If you see someone shooting a FC (or opponent. This applies to match play as well) you should probably call 911, not the organising committee. 2. No. Losing a golf ball is not cheating. What you do after you have lost it might be. 3. No. It's not an advantage to lose a golf ball. Depending on what you do next, you might gain an unfair advantage over everyone else who has also lost a ball in the setting sun under the ten tonnes of leaves that your superintendent daily piles up on each fairway. I don't understand your next questions as they almost look like statements of your own opinion that have no basis in fact. 'You are essentially given a penalty for a poor shot'. I'm fairly sure the Rules of Golf couldn't care less about how 'pure' or otherwise you strike your shot. If they did then as well as fore caddies and RFID chips we would all now have to shell out for 'Pur-o-Meters' TM that give a reading for each shot. Based on that reading you could then assess the correct penalty to the shot in question.

For a lost ball, the similarity in every case is that the ball that you hit is now lost.

Sorry. I missed the part when the ball was in the bunker. But I still think that the rule applies regardless of whether your bunker shot is shanked 50yds right or hit pure. If you can't find it, there is a penalty. The penalty is for losing the ball.

Losing the ball. I thought that was in the title of the thread.

I'm not sure if your 'poll' was meant as a joke but I will answer: YES. I do think that the rule was meant to apply to both of the shots that you describe.

I clearly need more work to do as I've actually sat and read through this whole thread! I also now need plugs after having pulled out a substantial amount of hair! Anyway, I am amazed at the one glaring omission from this thread: At every point a provisional ball has been mentioned it has been assumed that the provisional tee-shot will be perfect and in the middle of the fairway (and not under any of the leaves that have afflicted the first one!) Surely some of you here have experienced the joy of hitting your regular 50yd slice into the thick stuff on the right, declaring a provisional and re-teeing, aiming thirty yards left to account for the slice, and sending a magnificent pull hook into the crap on the left!!

The one thing that I would add to this thread is the fact that you should always try and be aware of all the options available to you in any given situation. For example, Seve fans will remember that quite often when his ball was near a tree trunk, he was very good at spotting rabbit scrapes from which he might get free relief!! I'm not trying to condone bending or stretching rules - 'equity' is a very important aspect of the rules - but I think it's important to note that having knowledge of the rules is not only about applying the correct penalties to yourself, but is also about making sure you avail yourself of the best option for yourself in each situation.

Not to mention that coming up with scenarios where people could twist a rule is the best way of finding out if there are any gaps in the rules that should be addressed. It certainly helps to have an overarching rule that gives committees power to deal with 'serious breaches' on a case-by-case basis, but it never hurts to try and legislate for these gaps as well. Rules are always in an evolutionary state. There will never be a 'finished' version of the rules.

I consider myself lucky that I started being a regular on a golf course at the age of five and had my father and numerous peers of his to teach me exactly what was and wasn't expected of me on the golf course. Some people weren't as lucky and simply don't know these things and the only way they are going to find out is by being helped by others. I understand, however, how difficult it might be to provide this 'help' to a grown man rather than a five year old! The one thing I think should be easier to deal with is the shaving. If you don't already, then make a real effort to keep track of every shot he hits and from where. When he says 'Five!' as you're walking off the green it can be tricky if all you can say is, "Oh, I thought you had seven". However, if you can say "Oh, I thought you hit your tee shot in the rough on the right, two back on to the fairway, three to the semi-rough at the back of the green, chipped on for four about 20ft below the hole, putted about six feet past and then left the one back about six inches short and tapped in, so I make it a seven", there's very little he can come back with. Once you've recited every shot he's played on several holes he should get the idea that he either needs to stop lying or that he should pay a bit more attention!

For sure, but this was a definite marking it on the green situation. Like I say, I'm sure it was just an issue of how the green was cut making it look like a fringe on TV. There was a second line just outside the ball as well which I'm sure was the actual fringe.

I also had some confusion over the green/fringe during the Masters. I can't remember who/where/when, but I saw a player marking his ball and I thought, "Hang on, he's not on the green!" I pretty much instantly dismissed it as I was sure no top pro would make that mistake and figured it must just be some issue with how the green was cut. Funny that when you noticed something similar it was reversed and that the ball appeared on the green but was off.

This should be: "The question would then be would touching that mark on the ground constitute 'pointing out a line for putting'."

To be fair turtleback didn't say anything about 'placing' a mark. I took him to mean that if there was, for example, a spike mark or a discoloured spot on the surface behind the ball that matched up with the line you wanted to take then that could be used to point out the line of the putt. The question would then be are you allowed to touch that mark on the ground as a way of 'pointing out a line for putting'. My contention is that 'pointing out a line for putting' and 'aligning' are subtly different. It's a strangely worded rule and my frustration with it has been compounded by this page: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-08/#d8-2b-1 At the bottom it says "Other Decisions related to Rule 8-2b : See "Indicating Line for Putting" and "Line of Putt" in the Index." but I can't for the life of me find the Index on the website. Am I being very dumb? Or is it referring just to the Index of the printed material and they've copied it verbatim to the website but not included an Index?!

I know what you mean and certainly you could align yourself using a natural mark on the ground behind the ball, or even, as some players do, by having a caddie stand directly behind you while you line up. I guess what I am saying is that I am interpreting the act of 'pointing out a line for putting' as saying 'Aim here' and so touching any point behind the ball can't be taken as saying where to aim.

I've read both http://thesandtrap.com/t/58953/is-it-legal-to-use-your-putter-to-line-up-your-putt and http://golfrules.freeforums.org/line-for-putting-t1833.html as referenced in Dormie's post and I figured I'd throw in my tuppence worth. It would probably be more appropriate in http://thesandtrap.com/t/58953/is-it-legal-to-use-your-putter-to-line-up-your-putt but I didn't want to bump a nearly year old thread. Anyway, the point that strikes me about the language of 8.2b is "... may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting ," There seems to have been a lot of discussion about where the 'line for putting' is in relation to the 'line of putt' as discussed in 16.1 but the point I haven't seen made anywhere is that the language 'line for putting' seems to me clearly intended to indicate a point at which the ball would be aimed. Thus, any point on the green in a direction opposite from that which the ball will be traveling cannot possibly be used to 'point out a line for putting'.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm pleased to see that the general feeling matches my own disbelief upon hearing about this! The commemorative plaque really sealed the greatness of the story for me. I count myself lucky that my friend is very much a non-golfer and cannot really appreciate the frustration of a golfer of 30+ years who has never had a hole-in-one hearing about his 'success'. If he knew he would assuredly wind me up about it a lot more often!! To be fair to the course it sounds like a fun place ran by a local couple - http://hackershavenpar3.com I don't think they have any illusions that their course would ever be affiliated with Golf Canada for handicapping purposes etc etc. I imagine they brought this in as a gimmick as they liked the idea of the 'Honor Roll' but realised that they would probably only be putting up a plaque once every couple of years if they insisted on actual holes-in-one!

haha - afraid not. I believe it was only designed as a rule for the final hole! :P

Hi Folks. Fairly new here and enjoy reading peoples thoughts and stories so I thought I'd share this one and see if anyone else had ever come across it before: A friend of mine was playing at a local par 3 course and on the final hole he hit his tee shot which struck the pin and ended up a few feet away. As he walked up several people around the green congratulated him on his "Hole in One". Apparently the 'rule' at the final hole on this course is that "The pin is in play" so if your ball hits it with your tee shot it counts as being holed! I must emphasise that this is very much a recreational course. I don't imagine anyone there is using this rule for handicapping purposes so I'm not bothered about the 'correctness' of this 'local rule'. He even has a plaque commemorating it: I've asked a few people who've played golf for many years and none of them have heard of it before. However, all of these people, myself included, have played the majority of their golf in the UK. Is this something people in North America have seen before/regularly?

To be able to sue for something like this I'd imagine you'd have to be able to prove that something that had been promised, and which you had made decisions based upon, had then been changed at a later date affecting you personally. In respect of tournaments I would imagine each year's version would exist as a separate entity and each would have separate rules and regulations that players would sign up to every year so the player wouldn't be able to say, "2013's rules were different to 2012's...Not fair!" In regards to Tours changing rules or eligibility probably a good example would be the PGA getting rid of Tour School. They announced in March 2012 that Q-school in fall 2012 would be the last to provide direct entry onto the PGA Tour. I think it would be hard for a player to argue that they had already made specific decisions in their career that were specifically geared to qualifying for the PGA Tour at 2013 Q-school. I guess what I'm saying is that if a dramatic change is announced far enough in advance then they are giving people the ability to adapt so it would be hard to argue it has cost you money. Beyond all this, I would imagine every tournament or championship has a clause in their Terms & Conditions which basically says "We can do what we want, when we want!" Not because they specifically intend to use it, but to cover themselves in the event they have to make a major change (a sponsor goes broke and can't pay, for example).

I would agree if the OWGR were a completely independent entity. They could do what they like. But they are: "endorsed by the four Major Championships and the six leading professional tours which make up the International Federation of PGA Tours." I'm not exactly sure what 'endorsed' means here. I don't know if there is financial backing involved in any way and/or any 'contractual obligations'. However, just because they currently endorse the OWGR doesn't mean that the R&A; and USGA (and The Masters and other Tours) might not decide to use a different ranking system in the event of bifurcation.

I've not seen this mentioned in any of the discussions I've read about the anchoring ban so I thought I'd start a new thread specifically about issues that could arise regarding the OWGR and whether the PGA Tour accept the anchoring ban. In many threads I've seen, a common point made is along the lines of "So what. Let the PGA make their own rules. The people anchoring can continue to do so on the PGA Tour but then when they play in the majors that don't allow it then they have to use the short stick" I think that simplifies things greatly. The most direct way to qualify for every major (and WGC events) is based on your position on OWGR. OWGR is officially sanctioned by every major championship and every major tour. If the PGA Tour decided to go against the ban then I imagine OWGR would have to fall on one side of the debate or the other. I can't see that R&A; and USGA would continue to sanction a ranking system that gives points to the PGA Tour who have decided to play outside of the ban. Whichever way the OWGR fell I'm sure the other side would up their own ranking system but I would imagine the R&A; and USGA would still see the one they use as the 'official' ranking system and so they would take their automatic qualifiers from that list. If this scenario is presented to the PGA Tour players is it really feasible that the majority of the players will accept giving up these major qualification spots in support of a small minority (the anchoring players)?

Tiger Woods will refuse to talk about the weather. The internet explodes with criticism.

The first openly gay golfer will come forward this year and be roundly applauded for his courage in coming out to the world and admitting his true self. Two weeks later another player will declare himself an atheist and will be put in a sack full of rocks and thrown in the pond at the 17th at Sawgrass.