Ignorant

So you would mark both the marshy area and the swamp as LWH? On what grounds?

I am not sure if I got the full picture but the definition of a Water Hazard if pretty clear and it does not include occationally wet areas such as low-land forests or swamps. If that marshy/swampy area really is impracticle to play from it might be an idea to make it out of bounds, or if there are any future prospects to dry it then a GUR with a dropping zone could be used. So to answer your question and more, none of those areas marked in the picture with red lines should be marked as Lateral Water Hazard as they are not by definition. The dark spot beside the green seems to be a WH and to be marked as LWH. Looks like a pretty challenging hole all in all.

You might want to learn how to make different yardages with one single club. That would improve your game in all respects and allow you play lower scores with only 8 clubs than with those 15.

This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of accepting a statement from one of the two Ruling Bodies. This is the last of it from my part, I do not have competence nor will to argue with R&A;, unlike some others seem to have.

A good post. Denying things is no route to understanding but understanding the facts is. Well written, Turtleback.

1) You are being rude to anyone who's opinions you don't like so being rude should not come as a surprise to you. 2) The way I see it it is you who has brought the negativity in this thread by calling Rulesman (or ********, as you like to call him...) a liar as well as the official from R&A;, which I find appalling. 3) Your argument is that this Local Rule should have been widespread in order to have been legitimate. As it has not been widespread (in the jurisdiction of USGA) your direct conclusion is that virtually nobody has ever heard about it and thus it is wrong and untrue. I see it differently. This Local Rule has previously been authorized by R&A; (within its jurisdiction) as shown by Rulesman but has not been widely known and thus not widely used. In my mind this is the most credible scenario as I cannot see any possible reason for a R&A; official to publicly lie about such an issue. And then again, what is the value of this entire argument anyway? That Local Rule is not authorized today, end of story.

How pompous can you get?? Why don't you just accept that there are things in the golfing world that you or your friends have never come across with? Who are you to judge 90% of the golfing world just because you did not know something or thought it is wrong? I agree with you and fourputt that this Local Rule is/was no good and against the general principle of golf but I am more than willing to accept that there are and have been eg. regional/local issues and aspects in golf that I do not know of, and for that reason I am not going to say they were wrong. It seems to me that you are trying to lift not only USGA but also yourself above R&A.; To me it seems a very questionable thing to do. (I am counting minutes for how long his post will remain on the board...)

After this statement there is no doubt ever that the game of golf was invented by the Scottish people...

So golf is fair only outside USA and Mexico ? That statement carries all the weight there is to it as it reflects the fairness principle of golf. It is not saying that golf should be fair but the actions players take on the course must be fair. Also it says that Rules are fair. Makes a lot of sense, IMO.

. From page 1 in the Rules of Golf: Play the ball as it lies, play the course as you find it, and if you cannot do either, do what is fair . But to do what is fair , you need to know the Rules of Golf.

There is this one specific situation described in Dec 20-1/0.7 where a player may lift his ball to find out if he is entitled to a relief. Before doing it he must inform his opponent/fc of his intentions.

I don't know what you are referring to, but why don't you make the multiquote feature easier to use, just like a zillion other discussion forums have done?

I wonder why you are addressing this to me as there are 3 other persons referring to Tufts' book and I wasn't even first of them?

Certainly not, but what has that to do with anything? A completely different situation would arise if relief by LR would be mandatory (just for an example). Players really knowing the Rules would refuse to take the relief as that LR would be against the RoG resulting to be DQ'd by the Committee having drafted the incorrect LR. That is my entire point here.

Not that I disagree with that sacred principle but I bet Mr. Tufts also believed that distances should be estimated instead of pacing them off, not to mention measuring them with a range finder. Things have a tendency to change.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kenn Quote: What about the twist on this rule seen most dramatically at the US Open at Olympic? At any rate, Payne Stewart had to hit a key shot out of one such divot. He argued that, since the grounds crew had applied this sand, it was clearly ground under repair, and he was entitled to relief. http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=5536.15;wap2 Yes Payne, it does make perfect sense. When does that sand filled divot hole stop being GUR? Who decides that? Will that speed up the game when a referee is called at the scene every time someone's ball is lying on the fairway and the player thinks he does not have a perfect lie? I find that idea to be quite ridiculous, and I believe Mr. Stewart would have preferred to make his shots from a sand filled divot hole than from a divot hole not filled with anything.

I got pretty tired reading posts where some people claim it is not possible to have such a Local Rule. As that is complete BS I decided to write those three simple questions. I have encountered various Local Rules that are against the Rules in my time and every time (if feasible) I have tried to inform the responsible parties about the error. However, I'd be a complete fool to argue that those Local Rules never existed. And for the record, people playing by those erroneous Local Rules would put themselves between a rock and a hard place should they not follow them in a competition as it is the Committee in question that has created them and it is that very Committee that would penalize the player in breach of the LR. So no wonder they follow all LR's at their club, not knowing (or believing) they could be against the Rules of Golf.

I see no need to answer your further questions. Satisfied? (great discussion forum...)

Great, now we finally agree on something! Next question: Is it possible that people somewhere around the globe had misunderstood the Rule in question and drafted a Local Rule that was against the Rules? Further question: Having an erroneous Local Rule in effect what should the players have done about it taking into account that they were no Rules Experts? And the final question: Is it possible that there have been clubs where such a Local Rule may have been in effect and people in good faith have played by it?

Is it or is it not a fact that before 1.1.2010 it was allowed by the Rules of Golf to make a Local Rule allowing relief from a divot?

Extremely good point.

I did not have to, you did it yourself. You said that opinion presented by Birly is wrong. How can an opinion be wrong? It is just an opinion, so are you the Judge? Besides, how can you be so sure that R13-1 would not be changed in time (as it already was in 2010 as pointed out by Birly)? The potential need for a change is what this discussion is all about, not at all what the Rule is or has been. Yup, having been a referee on a national level quite a few years I do know the distinction of Decisions and Rules. Unfortunately some Decisions overrule a Rule instead of clarifying it so I would call that a modification of a Rule. Just a recent change in D30/2.5 proves my point. You should reaad it, too, and maybe the rest of the Decisions as well ;-)

I am taking a bold step in trying to be a referee here. The way I read Birly never said it was according to the Rules. What he is saying is that in his region this was allowed by a Local Rule. Now, making such LR is not allowed by the RoG but as it is there the player inevitable tend to follow it. Not much sense to argue about that, I think.

Just slightly before you think you are The God who says which Rule is to be changed and which is not I would like to remind you that a new Decision Book 2014-2015 has recently been published. In that book there seems to be quite a few Decisions revised and some even turned around 180 degrees, not to mention the new ones that change things more than just a little. So maybe the Rules aren't that perfect yet... and opinions are still allowed, for everyone.

That sure helps you to distinguish your original ball from your provisional one, but what if you find two balls of the same brand and same number? It certainly is way much easier to make a distinctive mark on one's ball, just to make sure. Besides the Rules enourage all players to do that...