• 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

    502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Asheville last won the day on December 27 2015

Asheville had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

78 Power and Finesse to Spare

1 Follower

About Asheville

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Asheville, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

1,794 profile views
  1. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    Those rambling narratives wear me out and then "alternative facts" find their way into the story. I'm inclined toward DQ because the player without KVC should have played 27-1, but didn't and didn't correct his WP serious breach.
  2. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    Well, wouldn't you know! I'm refereeing a nice AJGA event near Chattanoga this week and this afternoon a call comes in for a ruling on #5. A garbled version of events has some of the elements of this discussion. I reply that I'll be there in a few minutes as this might turn out to be complicated. Player's second is seen heading for the yellow staked water hazard. As the player nears the hazard, a spectator tells him that they definately saw his ball go into the hazard. The player goes to the dropping zone established for that hole, drops, and plays onto the green. Easy right? When the player crosses the bridge he finds his original ball and does the smart thing . . . he asks for help. He didn't like my ruling that he must abandon the original ball and hole out with the ball from the drop zone. I said let's make sure I'm not wrong and look it up in the book. He looks over my shoulder and reads: D26-1/3.5 Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found Q. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard. It is known or virtually certain that the player's ball is in the water hazard, and he drops a ball under Rule 26-1b. Before he plays the dropped ball, his original ball is found within the five-minute search period. What is the ruling? A. As it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard when the player put the substituted ball into play, that ball was correctly substituted and he may not play the original ball.
  3. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    Incorrectly substituted ball played from a wrong place and most likely a serious breach.
  4. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    It's most likely an incorrectly substituted ball (R15-2) played from a wrong place (R20-7).
  5. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    It's important to understand this: Decision 26-1/1 Meaning of "Known or Virtually Certain"
  6. Provisional or Drop for a Water Hazard

    Take a look at these Decisions: 26-1/3.5 Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found 26-1/3.7 Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule Without It Being Known or Virtually Certain Ball in Hazard; Original Ball Then Found 26-1/4 Ball Played Under Water Hazard Rule Without Knowledge or Virtual Certainty That Original Ball in Hazard; Original Ball Then Found in Hazard 26-1/5 Ball Dropped and Played Under Water Hazard Rule; Original Ball Then Found in Hazard and Holed Out as Second Ball
  7. sand outside of the bunker

    Assuming stroke play, he could have played a second ball iaw R3-3. Then let the Committee decide which ball would count. Had it been match play, the player most do what he thinks is correct. If his opponent objects, he must do so before the match begins the next hole. This is R2-5.
  8. Why Don't Serious Golfers Know the Rules?

    I'm an experienced referee in the Carolinas Golf Association program. I do stroke play and match play events for the CGA, USGA Qualifiers, AJGA and some D1 college golf. I rarely see a player over the age of 15 who doesn't know the basics. On the other hand, I do some high school stuff and those players know almost nothing . . . the "golf coach" is really an assistant football coach who does nothing more than organize the busses. They don't know golf and don't know the Rules. At my club, of 300 players there aren't more than a dozen who know their options from yellow and red hazards. That's just the way it is and I don't see any improvements in the future. Despite the looming Rules Moderization effort, most club players just don't care and no matter how simple the Rules become, they won't bother. I'm okay with that.
  9. Putting with the Flagstick In

    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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.