• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.

Asheville

Established Member
  • Content count

    494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Asheville last won the day on December 27 2015

Asheville had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Power and Finesse to Spare

1 Follower

About Asheville

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Asheville, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

1,536 profile views
  1. In fact, here's what the USGA has to say on the topic: Explanation for Proposed Rule Change 3. Ball Played from the Putting Green Hits Unattended Flagstick in Hole Current Rule: Under Rule 17-3, if a player makes a stroke on the putting green and the ball then hits the unattended flagstick that was left in the hole, the player gets the general penalty. Proposed Rule: Under new Rule 13.2b(3):  There would no longer be a penalty if a ball played from the putting green hits an unattended flagstick in the hole.  Players would not be required to putt with the unattended flagstick in the hole; rather, they would continue to have the choice to remove the flagstick before playing or to have it attended. Reasons for Change:  Allowing a player to putt with the flagstick in the hole without fear of penalty should generally help speed up play: o For example, if a putt is long enough that the player cannot easily see the hole unless the flagstick is left in, the player currently needs to wait for another person to attend the flagstick even if it is the player’s turn to play or (in stroke play) if the player is ready to play and it would save time to go ahead and do so. o This change could also speed up play of some short tap-ins, as the player could simply putt the ball into the hole without first removing and then replacing the flagstick.  When the players do not have caddies, the current Rule can result in considerable delay, such as: o When the opponent (or the other player in stroke play) is raking a greenside bunker and will be delayed for a minute or two before coming on to the green. o When other players in stroke play are delayed in coming on to the green for other reasons, such as a ball search, indecision about what club to use or shot to play, etc. o When all players in the group have long putts and so will need to walk back and forth to the hole to attend the flagstick for one another (which sometimes produces uncertainty about who will or should attend for someone else).  In match play, a player without a caddie would now be able to choose to putt with the unattended flagstick in the hole rather than ask the opponent to attend the flagstick, reducing the potential for dispute that can arise when the opponent attends for the player (such as when the opponent fails to remove the flagstick and the ball hits it).  On balance it is expected that there should be no advantage in being able to putt with the unattended flagstick in the hole: o In some cases the ball may strike the flagstick and bounce out of the hole when it might otherwise have been holed, and o In other cases the ball may hit the flagstick and finish in the hole when it might otherwise have missed. -------- To suggest that they are ignorant or dishonest, is disingenuous on your part.
  2. Here's a notice to players: http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2017/rules-modernization/sample-notice-to-try-out-the-proposed-rules-of-golf-for-2019.pdf
  3. Dear USGA Rules Committee, Pelz's data suggests this proposal will lower scores. No one knows by how much. Do you think it's worth it? Love, Charlie
  4. Thanks, and I agree. However, if the reader gives up halfway into the screed, all is lost. The USGA Rules organization knows the data and the arguments and doesn't need any background. They're looking for new ideas and information. I'm a fan of Erik and this site. But like you, I've been here long enough to know his style of writing. Many's the time I've started one of his posts only to abandon it a quarter of the way through when he's changed the subject, in an effort to reply to yet another poster, for the third time. One thing at a time. And in this case, less is more. Maybe three paragraphs is one or two too many.
  5. I accepted Pelz's conclusion on the flagstick years ago. I'm an evidence based decision maker, in the main. The existing Rule is one of a few nuisance Rules. This and some others such as spike marks and unequal treatment of loose impediments have been addressed by the moderization scheme. I'll be happy with whatever is made into law.
  6. The only "proof" most of us have is from Pelz. However, we tend to find therein conclusions which confirm our existing views. People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal, 1658
  7. An important part of my job was technical writing. Less is more.
  8. While I don't agree that leaving the flagstick in is such a travesty, you will make your case better by being less wordy. I've been reading you here for few years and you "talk" too much! That said, I'm a fan and do manage to wade through most of your lengthy posts. Three paragraphs. What do you want. Briefly why. Restate what you want.
  9. Make your case in half as many words.
  10. From Appendix I: 6. Dropping Zones The Committee may establish dropping zones on which balls may or must be dropped when the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed exactly in conformity with Rule 24-2b or Rule 24-3 (Immovable Obstruction), Rule 25-1b or 25-1c (Abnormal Ground Conditions), 25-3 (Wrong Putting Green), Rule 26-1 (Water Hazards and Lateral Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable). Generally, such dropping zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.
  11. See here: http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/modernizing-golf-s-rules--faqs.html Though I don't think it's a wise move to introduce unapproved Local Rules, you might be swimming against the tide. There's a link in #12 of the FAQs for a test Rules sheet.
  12. As you know, unless it's a Local Rule or on somebody's hard card, assumptions about such things are unwarranted.
  13. Martyn, I must disagree with your assertion. :)
  14. David, since it meets the Definition of obstruction, it must be considered so unless the Local Rule says otherwise.
  15. One of the ways to better understand the principles behind the Rules is to read (and reread) this: https://www.usgapublications.com/collections/rules-of-golf/products/principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-paperback-2016-edition?variant=25702107654