• 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.
    • iacas

      Win a Cart with Sun Mountain and TST!   06/02/2017

      You can win a Speed Cart GT or a Micro Cart GT from Sun Mountain!

Martyn W

Established Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Power and Finesse to Spare

About Martyn W

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Myrtle Beach SC

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

1,567 profile views
  1. Potentially, yes. In your scenario it seems your guy was 'intentionally offending someone'. 33-7/8 Meaning of "Serious Breach of Etiquette" Q.In Rule 33-7, what is meant by a "serious breach of etiquette"? A.A serious breach of etiquette is behavior by a player that shows a significant disregard for an aspect of the Etiquette Section, such as intentionally distracting another player or intentionally offending someone. Although a Committee may disqualify a player under Rule 33-7 for a single act that it considers to be a serious breach of etiquette, in most cases it is recommended that such a penalty should be imposed only in the event of a further serious breach. Ultimately, the application of a penalty for a serious breach of etiquette under Rule 33-7 is at the discretion of the Committee.
  2. True, but that does not stop an ignorant committee from publishing bogus LRs
  3. Why, exactly? From FSGA: "Many professional tours as well as national, state and regional golf associations introduce a Local Rule that states that bulkheads when located inside of hazards become integral parts of the course".
  4. They do the same thing at Tidewater in Myrtle Beach. A friend of mine ran a Gateway Tour event there and pounded 700 white stakes, He was asked to remove them after the tournament!
  5. There is actually a 'root rule' which was revised in 2012. Prior to that no relief at all was available. 33-8/8 Local Rule Providing Relief from Tree Roots Q.May a Committee make a Local Rule providing relief without penalty if a player's stroke is interfered with by exposed tree roots? A.A Local Rule is authorized only if an abnormal condition exists. Generally, the existence of exposed tree roots is not abnormal. However, if the exposed tree roots are encroaching on to the fairway, a Committee would be authorized to make a Local Rule providing relief under Rule 25-1 for interference from exposed tree roots when a ball lies on a closely-mown area. The Committee may restrict relief to interference for the lie of ball and the area of intended swing. Bunker liners are IOs, pilings are used (for the most part) to prevent the bunker from collapsing making them, by definition, an Integral Part of the Course.
  6. You guys will get a kick out of this. As @DaveP043noted, resort courses have some crazy LRs This is Legends:
  7. We played a PGA Carolinas Section event there and the NtC declared it to be an integral part of the course, which is correct imo.
  8. Or 1-2, come to that.
  9. What 'other stroke? The penalty for playing a wrong ball is the general penalty (2 strokes in strokeplay).
  10. Several posters brought up the consistency with 7-2, remember that the breach must be corrected and ALL strokes made with the wrong ball don't count - you could make 5 or 6 'practice strokes' with the wrong ball! Almost seems like the 2 stroke penalty is not enough to me !
  11. I had a similar situation officiating at an NCAA event last year. A player's ball was under a bush and he called me over asking for relief from the rabbit scrape his ball was laying on. I asked him what he would be doing if the AGC was not there. Obviously knowing the Rule, he told he he would get on his knees and play the ball (expecting me to grant relief). Since it was 'clearly unreasonable' to play the ball I denied relief. Having painted himself into a corner, he attempted the shot, and three strokes later extricated the ball!
  12. Pretty unusual for a WH to have an opposite margin. I can't picture your scenario but it sounds like it was a LWH since he 'pulled a ball over a pond'.
  13. He was right, see 26-1c. Not that unusual, really.
  14. I know, I posted it ;). I also posted this:
  15. There would be no 13-2 breach but could be 1-2. If his intent is to care for the course, OK. If he rakes the bunker in case he hits into it, that would be a breach. A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole. Exceptions: 1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2. 2. An action taken for the sole purpose of caring for the course is not a breach of Rule 1-2