SweDeuS

I had my first trip to the US (NY) last week. Though I had a great time, I missed most of the Masters coverage. Now I'm trying to catch up, but I can't find any videos of the tournament at all. No video clips, highlights or full coverage (preferred). Who ows the the rights for the video material? Is it possible to see what actually happend? And why is it so damn difficult to find any information on this subject?

Well, if there are amateur players who would like to be able to play against teachers it still matters. If you consider it a waste of time I don't understand why you're here discussing it... I wasn't talking about caddies, superintendants or club salesmen. Where did you get that from? I compared NFL coaches to golf teachers, or do you think NFL coaches are compareable to caddies etc? Then we could compare golf teachers to NFL waterboys or mascots if you'd like. I bet they neither consider themselves Football PROs... I know that in todays rules there are simply pros and amateurs. It is a distinction between a teaching PRO and a playing PRO that I am suggesting. I don't think that they should be put in the same category...

Do you mean play a round or play around?

And I'll bet the VAST majority of the NFL coaches don't consider themself to be professional football players. Maybe I should have made myself more clear. I don't consider golf teachers/instructors to be profssional golf PLAYERS. Nothing disrespectful ment with that. I'm just saying that golf is (what I know of) the only sport where coaches/teachers/instructors have the same professional status as those who make their living winning tournaments...

Agreed! Though I don't consider teachers being professionals. Maybe thats where our opinions differ. To be a professional I feel you have to live off the game playing it, not teaching it...

What'sfun to add is that i wasn't even the longest hitter in the group. One of the other guys hit a 4 wood in the middle of the green... Hole was slightly downhill though.

I'm with phan on this one. A goal should be achievable, otherwise it becomes more like an illusion of a goal. Start by setting a goal that you can actually achieve. And when you do, set a new one. Becoming a better golfer is a task that involves many different variables and obsticals to overcome.

Just needed to add something. Why do I need to prove that teaching PROs wants to compete in amateur events? It's not like a change of the rule would force any teaching PRO to compete with amateurs. It would just make it possible for those who actually wants to. I think that the most relevant aspect would be to prove that amateurs don't want teaching PROs to be able to compete against them. Cause otherwise, whats the point of the rule at all?

As I said regarding how to police the matter, it would probably be best if someone from the USGA presented some proposals. My suggestions maybe wasn't all that great but I didn't really spend much time comming up with them either. I'm sure that if the rule was to be changed in the future, the USGA would for sure come up with some simple and fair ways to regulate the matter. As for the points you now wan't me to prove, you didn't mention them before. Or maybe I misunderstood you. Prove that pros WANT this rule to be changed (because, otherwise, why are we discussing it? --> Well, we're discussing it because the OP brought it up. I'm not going to get into proving that pros want the rule to be changed. Partly because it would take alot of research and partly because maybe they don't even care about the rule. I'm just saying that I don't really see the point of the rule existing at all. And as I said earlier, I think that the biggest problem with the rule is that it might restrain the amount of people who would consider to become a teaching PRO. "Look, at the end, it boils down to something very simple: I can't name ANY pro who wants to compete as an amateur." --> Agreed to the point that in order for the rule to be changed, teaching PROs need to wan't a change. Maybe they don't. I just don't see the point of a teacher being treated as a PRO, even though he/she has never competed at a professional level... I don't know about any other sport where teachers or coaches are not allowed to compete in amateur games or events. So what's so great about the rule existing in golf? I stand by my opinion until proven what's so important with the rule for the game of golf.

Can't you guys count? Seems like 14 slots to me according to the picture. 4 slots in the middle and 10 slots surrounding those 4...

With the information given so far it seemes like the play was correct if it was virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard. If not then the hole was incorrectly continued and the player would loose the hole in match play. In stroke play he would recieve a two stroke penalty for a breach against rule 27-1 and possibly be disqualyfied if decided that the player also breached rule 20-1. In stableford i guess it would mean a lost hole and zero stableford points aquired for that given hole. It all comes down to if it really was vitually certain that the ball was in the water hazard when a new ball was set into play. Which means that in a public tournament, a tournament ruler would have to make the decision given the known facts. In a private game it would have to be decided by the players in that group. Meaning by the player himself and his opponents in the group. Does this sound like a fair conclusion? ;-)

Would they? Then why are they not ridiculed for sitting on their knees or even lying down on the gruond, while reading putts?

Thanks for the replies, although I'm still not 100% sure what the ruling should be. Well, as we played stableford there should not be a disqualifycation for the entire round, but only for the particular hole described. This because you can not get any minus points in stableford, only zero points if the score is double bogie or worse in relation to handicap. As Dormie1360 states: In order to drop under the water hazard rule, (Rule 26) it must be known or virtually certain that your ball is in the hazard. What does virtually certain mean in this case? Does it mean that you have to actually see the ball enter the water hazard? If thats the case, do you then also have to see a splash? Otherwise it might be possible that the ball hit a rock in the water hazard and bounced out of it... (without your knowledge) Or does virtually certain mean that there should be no doubts that the ball is in the water hazard? If thats the case, we would claim that there were no doubts that the ball was in the water hazard. We did search every place where we could possibly imagine the ball ending up. The place where the ball actually was unrealistic to all of us and could only be seen from the back of the green. Meaning on the other side of the water hazard towards the next tee. As for playing the wrong ball, correct me if I'm wrong. Shouldn't the first ball be "out of play" when declared lost or declared as in a water hazard. If not, what would the outcome be if we actually saw the ball enter the hazard, only to later find the same senario as described. (the ball bounced out of the water hazard without our knowledge)

What I don't get is why you don't see this type of action on tour. Most tour players and golf instructors speak about how you shold always use alignement sticks and such during your range sessions. This to get better at aligning your shots to your intended target. During tournament play: why don't pros use an alignment stick (for body alignment or pointing at the intended target), take their stance, and then have their caddie removing it before they make their stroke?

In this past season me and some friends played a stableford competition against each other. On one hole we faced a situation which none of us had encountered before. We stood on the 10th tee of a reachable par 4 (about 310 yards). The green was surrounded by a water hazard except for the front side of the green. There was a hill on the left side of the fairway about 20-30 infront of the green. I was first to drive and hit i over the hill on the left side. We didn't see the ball behind the hill from the tee but I didn't hit a provisional since the only thing there was about 20-30 yards of fairway and then the water hazard. When we walked past the hill my ball wasn't to be found and we all declared it wet. I took a drop and finnished the hole with a bogey, 1 stableford point for me. As we then walked towards the next tee, we saw a ball in the fringe of the backside of the green. I ran back to check and indeed it was my first ball. It must have kicked to the right of the hill and ended up in a downslope towards the water hazard, on the back side of the green. What is the ruling in this case? Do I need to forfeit the holeor would my score still count as a bogey? I assume I could not have continued playing my not so wet ball, since I had claimed it to be "dead".