krupa

I don't remember what days I signed up for. Doesn't matter though, I too was denied.

I teed off yesterday at 9am and it was about 80 degrees. We finished at noon and it was 95+. As we were finishing, I saw some people on holes 10 and 2. So there were some hardy golfers out there! I probably wouldn't have started playing if it was 95 degrees but it wasn't terrible.

I have found that my phone (a Motorola X) has a fairly small sweet spot for NFC. You can be close and the phone makes a sad little noise, basically saying "I saw something was there but didn't know what to do with it". Then move the tag less than an inch and it reads it fine. When you put the phone in your pocket, do you hit the power button to turn the screen off? If so, don't. When the first hole comes up either put the phone in your pocket or hit the "half-moon" button in the center. (See attached, tiny picture I grabbed from their site.) Also, it's a little OT but how do you like that phone? I'm looking for a new one and was considering that one.

Undercover Tour Pro

Walked nine with my wife. She doesn't play but will push my cart for me which is nice. I was playing pretty well tonight but making an effort not to total up the score while we were waiting on a couple tees. Finally on the tee of the par 4 9th, my wife says, "You've got 45 so far." Great. If I par the hole, I'm sub-50 and I know it. I hit a decent drive, and then a 9-iron into a bunker. Chip out of the bunker (the sand was hard as a rock) and sink the putt for par. So 49? Not so fast. I total up the card (didn't use game golf tonight) and come up with 53. We go back and forth and I finally underline groups of holes that total 10 to discover I was counting one hole twice. Final score... 47! This is the second time this season that I've broken my best 9-hole score. I had no triple bogies and only one penalty stroke. I wish I had time to play full rounds.

I don't know; I wasn't trying to adjudicate it. I was simply pointing out that (a) the only decision I found about compasses was about the magnetic kind and (b) that on the surface, "using a device to measure something" sounds like it would be against the rules.

When DeChambeau invites you over to dinner... I couldn't resist.

There was a decision, 14-3/4 that sounds like it was intended for the directional compass: Using the geometrical compass sounds like he's using a device to measure distance which, on the surface, sounds like a no-no.

I voted no. While I agree with some of the authors points, I don't think the player complaints are completely unwarranted either. It's interesting that he used Stenson as an example. I googled a bit for remarks from Stenson and found this article. "A little bit over the line" is definitely not "whiny baby" talk. Now, the author of @iacas's post didn't directly quote Stenson but I do feel that it's worth pointing out Stenson's comments on the round since his poor play on 15 was used as an example. I think players are under a lot of pressure and different people deal with that pressure differently. I don't care if players complain about wind or talk to their ball or drop F-bombs, etc. I think that's part of being human. But they should be reasonable too and sometimes they're not (e.g., don't complain when your ball stays right when you hit it in a strong left-to-right wind.) But it's unfair to them as people to judge them over isolated instances of expressed emotion. I also think that the players can't win. If they keep their emotions in check and don't react to anything, we (the general public) can accuse them of being boring robots. If, instead, they react as the flawed human beings they are, we can call them childish names like "snowflake" and "whiny baby." So while I agree that the players have grown too accustomed to perfect conditions, I don't think they're "whiny babies" when they're faced with hard conditions and express their frustration.

Very interesting. I agree with his comment about paying people for some of those jobs. The USGA has mighty deep pockets and wouldn't be hurt by it. The one thing I don't understand... he was a volunteer and his volunteer credentials got him access to watch golf. What "ticket" did he pay $175 for!?

I am all over the place these days. Played 9 tonight, score 55. I was +1 after three holes. Then +7 after four. On one hole, I was 164 yards from a pond and figured an 8I was a safe layup... nope. According to game golf, it was my best 8I ever. Still managed a bogey even with the penalty. On the plus side, I'm gaining distance with all of my clubs. On the negative side, I'm now having club selection problems.

I don't think difficulty would bother me as much as cost. If I knew it was a tough course, I simply wouldn't keep score and pick up after I reached say double or triple-bogey.

The rules can't possibly cover every possible scenario. That's why rules like 33-7 exist.

I don't understand what you're saying.

What isn't clear enough here?

There are clearly defined penalties for 1-2 and 14-5 (the two rules that could have applied to Phil). In my opinion, purposefully breaking any rule is a breach of etiquette and we don't need a new rule to address that. I disagree. There is enough being made about this in the press and social media that I don't believe the rules-makers wouldn't be influenced by it all. Document it now and work it into the next rules-review cycle.

True but my argument against that is in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile infraction (e.g., DJ's accidental ball movement a couple years back) do they have the correct perspective to make the best change?

I voted no for two reasons. Rule 33-7 already says "If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule." so the rules already support DQ'ing. In my opinion, the USGA didn't DQ Phil because he's a fan favorite and knew they'd get worse press for the DQ than if they just said "nope, 14-5 applies here." The powers-that-be need to stop quickly adding/changing rules in the aftermath of a controversial/high-profile events.

Lots and there is a metric shit-tonne of security there. And every stadium I've gone to, they have a phone number that you can text to report problematic/drunk people. There's no reason that the PGA Tour and/or host club can't do the same thing. No one disagrees with that. The question is, should we allow fan A to have all the "fun" he wants when it's ruining the "fun" for other fans? How much should the Tour and tournament hosts indulge a minority of fans? Even I know that it's bad business to lose 5 ticket-buyers because of 1 drunk idiot.

I agree that there should be leeway but (1) for the majority of shots, I bet 40 seconds is more than enough and (2) when they used it on the Euro Tour, they had a couple extensions that they could use when faced with something tricky.

What Phil did was unprecedented. Why wouldn't it be discussed at length on a golf forum?

I would say that breaking the rules with a big smile on your face is also disrespecting the game.

Well, Tour pros have a motivation to publicly support the non-DQ option; sooner or later they could be in the middle of their own rules fracas. Did he have any reasons beyond, "the rules says 2 stroke penalty and that's what he got"?

Thanks! Am I really the only birthday today? Cool. And, for the record, I'm 43 today. My wife gave me a copy of Open: Inside the ropes of Bethpage Black which I had already read, gave away, and wanted to re-read. She also caddied (pushed the cart) for nine holes of golf last night. 🙂

In baseball, if a pitcher hits a batter with a wild pitch, the runner takes a base. But if it's deemed that the pitcher intentionally hit the batter, the batter gets his base and the pitcher is thrown out of the game. While I don't think the move was premeditated it was certainly intentional and therefore unsportsmanlike and, in my opinion, he should have been DQ'd.