rogolf

Let’s look at some facts regarding this thread: It’s three months since a new Rules code came into effect and there was no change to the status of Rule 25-2 and the local Rule for embedded ball, indicating that the ruling bodies agreed on the status quo. The normal cycle for Rules code changes would suggest that the next code would become effective January 1, 2020. The ruling bodies may have signaled that this cycle might not be normal when they only said on the front of the Rule book “Effective January 2016” whereas the previous book said “2012-2015.” In a normal cycle, the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and the Joint Rules Committee will be considering/discussing potential Rules changes for the next three years – adopting some, discarding some. I am confident that these Committees have one common interest and goal – that any change must be made for the betterment of the game. (if someone doesn’t share that goal, they shouldn’t be on the Committee.) Given that the Rules already provide the authority to local Committees to implement the local Rule for an embedded ball through the green, how will this speculated change from local Rule to Rule make the game better? The originator of this thread wrote that someone reportedly involved told him that the USGA “wanted” the situation changed. It didn’t happen, and there is no other factual information available, only conjecture.

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.

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.

And it was the correct ruling - the Decisions in Rule 10 make it quite clear, and the referee, Steve Rintoul knew it.

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?

Thank you for that recognition! :)

iacas said: YEs, very much these give-and-takes. It's a negotiation. The USGA really wants one thing, so they "give" on something they care less about to satisfy the R&A, or vice versa. This is incorrect (could be BS as iacas sometimes says). It is not a negotiation. It is about reaching agreement on what is acceptable for the game to all of the Committees involved, and, if there is no agreement, it's put off to another day.

During the discussions on Rule changes, there are "gives and takes" on each side. There are three groups involved in the discussions - the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and the Joint Rules Committee. On this particular Rule/Local Rule discussion, the R&A are "protective" of their links golf courses, where the substrate is mainly sand, and that is where the Exceptions in the Local Rule come into effect. It's my understanding that they do not want to provide relief for a ball embedded in sand off a closely-mown area on links courses. The three groups have reached agreement on this situation, and that is just fine, as agreements should be. As in any agreement between gentlemen, there are no winners or losers, they just move on together.

Golf Canada adopted the same "rule" in January. http://golfcanada.ca/blogs/article/rules-and-rants/faq-playing-golf-alone/

Two things to note about it: 1. it's slow 2. you are not permitted to stand on your line of putt, which includes a reasonable distance on each side of the precise line you wish the ball to take. "Reasonable" is not defined so one could expect some discussion.

If I'm working as a referee, I will ask you to show me what you consider a dangerous situation, then ask you why you consider it so. Then I will decide, based on our conversation and my experience and knowledge, whether or not free relief is warranted. I will probably err on the side of safety based on your input and my experience and knowledge. However, I will not make a statement which would provide a ruling for the next situation encountered. Each one is different and making a "blanket" statement to cover every situation does not work for anyone. "Potential" or "possible" dangerous situations are not covered in the Decisions, they only cover those situations which are dangerous.

For all you brave souls.... the 2016 MGA Rules Quiz http://www.mgagolf.org/pdf/rules/quiz/2016

Thanks for reminding me of Decision 18-2/8.5 as that does resolve my issue of not being able to get to a total of 10 if the location of the original ball is known (and proves that Lew is right again!) As that Decision says, if the location is not known, there would be a total of three strokes for proceeding under 27-1 from a wrong place (D1-4/12 would not be used to only apply the most severe penalty, as Martyn had suggested. The last paragraph of D18-2/8.5 is quite clear on three strokes.)

All of the above needs to be consistent with Decision 27/17. And the Rules do not require an announcement when proceeding under 27-1; the ball played becomes the ball in play, so C) disappears. The Committee needs to make its ruling based on the player's actions (Decision 34-3/6). The player played from a tee in the dropping zone. She was permitted by Rule 26-1 to use the dropping zone for that stroke, but incurred a two stroke penalty for placing instead of dropping, plus the one stroke for Rule 26-1. She then abandoned that ball. We don't know why, other than some bad guidance from a fellow-competitor. She dropped and played another ball. We don't know if she dropped as near as possible to the spot where she played the ball that was teed. Since she is no longer proceeding under Rule 26-1, the dropping zone itself is irrelevant. If she did drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, and no nearer the hole, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance with its one stroke penalty (Decision 27/17). Her score would be 9. If she didn't drop as near as possible to the spot where she had teed the ball, then she will be ruled to have proceeded under stroke and distance AND from a wrong place, for a total of three penalty strokes (this is similar to Tiger at The Masters). Her score would be 11. I can't get to a score of 10 unless the stroke and distance penalty is somehow ignored, and I don't think it should be.

From personal experience, I realize that disagreeing with Lew is a great risk! But in 3) you seem to be suggesting that a player can just ignore the ball they just played and, if they know its location, can just drop a ball anywhere (minus a serious breach) with a two stroke penalty. That just doesn't sit well with me. Have I read your 3) correctly?