Hat

Argue about changing the rules, by all means. But that it's correct to win by breaking the rules? Daft. They call that 'football' in the UK - and I'd argue it's a game, not a sport.

So now we'd all be happy seeing replays of the rules violation which won Lexi a tournament, because no one could report it?

How do we know C wasn't going to assess until she submits her scorecard? Agree she got lucky having it noticed quickly - perhaps the correct amendment to the rules is not to have any 'third party assessment' until after the round is complete - so A would get 2 strokes, B and C get 4, because the assessor checks after the scorecard is submitted, checking the integrity (and scrutiny of their own actions) of the player.

So take two theoretical golfers. Both make the same error, and one assesses the penalty on themselves. The other, for whatever reason, submits a scorecard without the penalty included, but is later penalised by the committee. Don't you want there to be a differentiation between these two golfers scores?

I don't play golf to any high standard, but when I put a marker down on the green and replace the ball, I know whether I'm putting it down in the wrong spot, certainly to the degree shown in the video - I'm right there looking down at my marker, after all, so I don't need 4K TV. I would imagine a golfer who does this thousands upon thousands of times would be able to replace a ball more accurately than I am. That there seems to be little gain in wilfuly misplacing the ball in a competition so closely examined, I can't comment - could be a momentary lapse of concentration, pressure, or even intent - only she can know. However, it seems obvious to me that it's reasonable that she should know she placed the ball down in the correct spot, or in this case, not. So given that she should have known and didn't assess a penalty on herself, the extra two shots for an incorrect scorecard seems fine as a penalty for her having not scrutinised her own actions closely enough. Removing that second penalty from the rules seems to only encourage people to try and get away with not scrutinising themselves enough. After that, the argument seems to boil down to whether we want the sport to be so highly regulated at competition level that every golfer has an official with them at all times in order to improve 'watchability'. Even then we'd probably argue about the individual officials, just as we do in other sports, and instances would arise, just as in other sports, where the official was incorrect in their assessment. Where do we draw the line in the sand then? As the official in question is quoted, she couldn't ignore an infraction of the rules once it had been brought to their attention. If we were currently talking about how Lexi had won in spite of a penalty that viewers could not notify the tournament of, would we be happy?

Some questions answered: 4-SW, including a GW I added later as the gap between PW and SW was over 30 yards. I don't have much issue with any but the 4-iron, which I sometimes struggle to get up in the air. This is a really good question - for me it's what I don't know, as I haven't hit that many different golf clubs. I hit the DI9's pretty well, as far as I can tell, but I worry as they are game improvement irons I am not able to feel the mishits so easily and learn from them...could just be pure paranoia, but I don't know what I don't know. I know I probably don't want a set of blades which are going to punish me into giving up the game, but I do want to learn, and I worry that I am not getting the feedback to do so. Thanks all again for your replies. I got out to play yesterday and didn't have feel any dissatisfaction with any particular club. I think part of the idea of buying new clubs is that you're somehow improving your game when you don't have time to play. From yesterday, I need to work on consistency, since I hit both a 240 yard drive and a 110 yard one with the same club :( . And I also need to work on my short game, since I think I lost most strokes from inside 50 yards. Although that got me thinking about wedges... :) Hat.

Thank you so much guys for all the replies. It's nice to know there are other budget golfers out there too. For some of the thoughts that have been shared: Appreciate all the support for buying second hand - for the amount of time I have to play, the costs are high if I buy new. As I play infrequently I'm also not that confident in my consistency of swing, so I don't feel like fitting will help me, but would be interested to hear opinions on that - perhaps basic loft and lie would still be worth it. I do have the occasional lesson too - I don't begrudge money in this area, but do find them more useful when I have time enough to play and put into practice what I've been taught. One thing I'm still wondering whether some of you have experience with is that change in tech I was potentially looking at. On one hand I wouldn't want to move to a set of clubs whereby my game becomes unplayable, but on the other hand I don't want to overlook a set of clubs that may introduce me to more 'feel' if the tech has advanced enough to still give me sufficient forgiveness. Perhaps the only option is to try them out... Thanks again, Hat

I'm very much a budget golfer. Please don't judge. My aim has always been to spend more in green fees than equipment, and I don't get to play that often...so budget, point made, be kind. i currentlyplay with some Wilson di9 irons, and have thought to update them. Recently I was seeing more modern clubs fall within a price scope (obviously second hand and not fitted..I know, but bear with...), however some of them are geared towards better players than I. But I was wondering.... The Wilson Ci100's for example. They suggest that they are for an improving player, and right now I am not improving very quickly, but they also suggest some forgiveness. Has technology moved on enough that there is sufficient forgiveness here to 'top' the old tech in my Di9's? I know I perhaps should aim at the modern 'D' club (to stick with Wilson as an example), but I'm curious as to people's experiences. What do you think? Hat.