Ignorant

For a player or a referee it would also be difficult so say who has made a particular hole on the ground. The root of this interpretation is that not any hole made/created by greenkeeping staff is subject to free relief without any proper markings. Naturally it puts emphasis on the work by the Committee in marking the course but it also prevents players from taking free drops out of accidentally created holes and indentations, such as tire marks. I already described the example of a rock removed and hole left unattended. How long would you consider that hole to be GUR? One season? Two? Until there is no clear hole? Until there is no indentation? Same thing with tree stumps teared off the ground. Depending on the type of the tree it may leave a deep hole (to be filled) or just a minor hole in most cases left as it is awaiting the nature take its course. How do you distinguish those? I find it easier to picture this issue from the purpose of the hole created by greenkeeping stuff. But then again, the Committee should mark those places anyway and not to leave the ultimate judgement on the player. The example of a winter green hole is not a good one as those holes are supposed to be filled after they have been taken out of use. But how about a small hole created by a showel stuck on the ground for the duration of a lunch break and taken off again causing a chunk of dirt coming off? Depending on the nature of the course (and quality of the staff...) minor irregularities in the areas ball is not normally meant to be played on may be more of a common practice than an exception and bad lies occur from lots of different reasons. Around here it is customary to limit marking of GUR to the areas ball is expected to be played and leave areas in poor condition way off those areas unmarked. So why should each and every hole made by greenkeeping staff be an automatic GUR regardless of its location and purpose? After all Ground Under Repair says it all, it is ground under repair, i.e. something is supposed to be done about that area within a decent time frame. Sometimes I have asked the staff whether they are going to fill a hole or an indentation (or remove a pile of material), and if the answer has been no I have not given relief from those holes/piles. It seems the right thing to do as those things are then part of the course as they are.

This I have been told my experienced referees and it all comes down to the fact that the Committee should ensure all GUR's are properly marked. Let us take an example. A greenkeeper decides to remove a rock from rough. Removing that rock leaves a void/hole in the ground but the greenkeeper feels that it is such a minor hole and pretty far away from the closely mown area that he decides to leave it as it is and let the grass eventually fill it. Strictly reading the Definition this hole would be GUR regardless how much grass there is and how old that hole is. Is that the purpose of the Definition? I've been taught no. There is clear similarity to stuff piled for removal / not to be removed. I admit this leaves room for interpretation but it is the responsibility of the Committee to mark the course properly. How do you know if material is piled for removal or just left there to rot?

Only if that hole is to be filled by the staff, i.e. it is a temporary hole (or temporarily unfilled hole, such as a hole made for a stake) and made on purpose. For example a hole on the ground created by pulling a rock or a stump of a fallen tree out may or may not be GUR. If it is to be filled it is GUR, if not, then no.

You do have a point there. Some players get nervous as soon as they even see a referee, then again some do not. This is just something they need to learn when competing. If they fall behind a referee is expected to show up at some point, and if they cannot pick up pace they will be re-visited by a referee again. Riding close is just a term. Once 'escorting' a group the referee should remain out of direct sight as much as possible but close enough to be able to help them. Sometimes that is not easy. Feedback from the players for this kind of assisting and 'putting pressure' has been mainly positive, and the negative feedback almost wihout exception comes from players already permanently slow and/or hot headed types. The key is to get them understand they are being helped.

The way I see it, who gets rewarded are the players in the following groups as they do not need to wait all the time for the preceding group in trouble. Afa D34-2/3 is concerned this practice is very much consistent with it when you think of it. That Dec does not say that a referee must prevent all players from breaching a Rule but only those he can see being about to do it. Same thing with a slow group, they are ones in need of assistance. It goes without saying that if I happen to be in a position to do it I always point out the location of a competitor's ball if I saw it land and it might be tricky or time-consuming to find. I don't see any kind of consistency problem there, quite on the contrary.

This is exactly what we do as well. Acting as forecaddie, helping the players to find their balls, riding close to them putting a bit of pressure... and it works, most of the time.

I do not want to get into the debate which system is superior, however, we have only two (2) appointed referees on each standard competition on the National Tour and we do not use the system you describe above. We have a PoP chart for each group but we are only concerned about the groups falling behind for no apparent reason. Also when falling behind for good reasons such as searching for balls we encourage them to move on. If they cannot catch the preceding group we may put them on the clock and only penallize individual players (not the entire group) according to the principles already presented earlier. I am rather compelled to say that in the past 5 years on our National Tour a single player has been penalized for breach of PoP maybe once or twice, thanks to the activity of the referees on the course. I must say, however, it takes a lot of work from us and an awful lot of patience on some of the regular competitors on that Tour...

D8-1/2: Exchanging Distance Information Information regarding the distance between two objects is public information and not advice. It is therefore permissible for players to exchange information relating to the distance between two objects. For example, a player may ask anyone, including his opponent, fellow-competitor or either of their caddies, the distance between his ball and the hole. This decision does not say how the distance information has been obtained so you are free to distribute any distance info you get by using a DMD. Also you are free to ask such info. Naturally DMD's have to be allowed by Local Rule in such a case.

This time issue seems to vary a lot around the world and tours. LET uses that 50/40 sec principle which is the same as USGA guideline. PGA Tour seems to give 40 sec and additional 20 sec under certain circumstances ( http://www.pgatour.com/tourreport/2013/04/12/pace-of-play-rules-for-PGA-TOUR-and-Masters.html ). Then there are practices where the time is constant (40 sec) but the extra time for the first player in turn is allowed by the referee's interpretation when it is the player's turn to play. I wonder why this could not be written in the Rules to make it the same everywhere?

Thanks for the info, John.

Well, at least one clerk at USGA has spoken :) All in all, in my mind use of a laser pointer does not seem to be in breach of the principle behind R8-2 as it does not leave any mark on the green. Thus I would not disagree with the USGA clerk ;-)

I disagree with you but that is most likely in vain, as you delete all posts/lines that you do not like. Just as in my post #44. I cannot help wondering why you did that.

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/58623/touching-line-of-putt/36#post_967931"] [QUOTE name="Fourputt" url="/t/58623/touching-line-of-putt/36#post_967927"] You don't think that it could "assist the player in his play" to have a mark made on the putting green with unusual equipment right up until the instant that he starts his stroke? [/QUOTE] As you can do that by pointing at the green or casting a shadow right now, no. [/QUOTE] Let's take an alignment rod as an example. You can stick your club in the ground and line up your swing while waiting the group ahead and that is perfectly allowed. But if you do the same thing with an alignment rod you are DQ'd. So the key issue is not whether you may achieve the same outcome with your normal equipment and with an unusual equipment, even though personally I would love to see Rules written that way. When you come to think of it, you are able to indicate the line for putting much more accurately with a laser pointer than with your club hanging in the air. If the sun is shining you get the same outcome with a shadow but what about on a cloudy day? I refuse to accept a different ruling depending on the weather :-P

I will not take a stand here as the issue is rather complicated but I just throw in some questions: What is it that constitutes 'an unusual equipment'? Is it unusual for golf or unusual in general? As we are dealing with Rules of Golf I would go for the former. Following preceding logic, IMO a laser pointer is certainly not an usual equipment for golf, unlike eyeglasses, 9V battery, (Rules) book or binoculars. Can we thus say that it is an unusual equipment? Well, I would say so. Next question is: when an unusual equipment is allowed? Well, that is a good question and the allround (arbitrary) answer is given in R14-3 as already indicated. So the answer should be found from there but against all odds that Rule is not very specific.. ;-)

You've lost track of the thread. There has been quite a few examples presented having nothing to do with the OP situation.

Not necessarily and that is the entire point here. You can easily make a test on a moist course by stepping on your ball eg. in the fairway pushing it halfway into the ground. Then you lift your ball and, abracadabra, there is water dripping into the hole! Water that you did not see before you lifted your ball... Furthermore, if you are entitled to a relief due to CW having lifted it for identification, wouldn't it be strange if you were not entitled to see whether there is CW in the hole in the first place? This, I believe, is the message of D20-1/0.7.

Is it visible? This is the question I have asked myself many times. Also I have asked myself how can a pitch-mark be filled with water if it is filled with ball. Could it be that the pitch-mark is filled up with water because the ball was lifted? The wording in D25/3 leaves lots of room for interpretations. And again, what if I lift my ball for identification and the pitch-mark (or whatever hole in the ground created by the ball...) fills up with CW am I entitled to relief even though that water was not visible before I lifted the ball?

I guess that would be the same as in the OP, to which I commented about possible refusing to grant relief due to CW.

I am sensing that you are not willing to participate in the discussion. No problem.

Are you a politician? I am so sorry, I will change that word so you may concentrate on the question instead of an incorrect term: Or let us take a more plausible scenario. My ball is plugged in and I wish to identify it. I inform my fc, mark the position and lift it. And voilá, the hole in the ground from which the ball was lifted from is (half)filled with water! What am I to do? Just stick it in and declare it unplayable? Chunk half of the territory with my SW to get the ball up? Sit down and cry? Ask the referee? Order a pizza?

I guess one would have at least some kind of feeling that there might be CW under the ball before lifting his ball.

Did you read my question in the last paragraph of my post #29? What say You? Or let us take a more plausible scenario. My ball is plugged in and I wish to identify it. I inform my fc, mark the position and lift it. And voilá, the pitch-mark is (half)filled with water! What am I to do? Just stick it in and declare it unplayable? Chunk half of the territory with my SW to get the ball up? Sit down and cry? Ask the referee? Order a pizza? Please help me!!!!

If I read you right a player has no legitimate reason for lifting his ball if he does not already know he is entitled a relief. Well, that is not what D20-1/0.7 says, so I have to disagree with you. What if a player's ball is plugged in the ground and another person lifts it without authority and the hole is filled up with casual water while the ball is being lifted? Is the player to replace his ball and pretend there is no CW?

So, at this point - Rulesman says that it is NOT allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded. - Colin L says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 because the ball was not embedded. - Rogolf says that it IS allowed to invoke D20-1/0.7 Who are we to believe here?

I wonder where you got that? Embedding is only one of the two options mentioned in the Dec, it certainly does not cover all the possible situations where the Dec would apply. Would you care to explain your view?