Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fredf

  1. Yes, 2.2 addresses the OP. But 2.2 does not answer Rulesman's question where in the rules does it say "a ball touching the green is on the green". Interestingly, this 'which rule' dimension exemplifies a significant difference between Rules exams prepared on either side of the ditch. In my experience, the USGA does not grill their exam takers on Rule numbers for specific issues. The R&A invariably does and that exercise can become extremely hairy. This is one reason why the USGA exams are fairer, IMO.
  2. My maths was dodgy (geometry not a strength), but that has no influence on the rules observations I was making. But I believe we are agreeing the following: a) IF the player can play a functional stroke with the 4 rescue back into the fairway, and that cart path interferes with that functional stroke, then the player is entitled to relief, but b) IF the player's stroke with the 4 rescue that has heel interference with the cart path is not a reasonable stroke in the circumstances, then the player is not entitled to relief. That is, if the only reasonable stroke to get the ball back into the fairway would not involve interference with the cart path, then there is no relief entitlement. So we have provided Bob T with the tools to answer his question whether relief was legitimate. We have also guided on where relief needed to have been taken if it was the case that relief was legitimate. If Bob wishes to provide any further information, we could refine this advice further.
  3. Agree, both of those rules get you to the correct answer to the situation in the OP but they both do not answer Rulesman's question. He asked where is the statement that a ball touching the green is on the green and there is only one rule (13.1a) that makes that statement. Rule 2.2c does not say a ball touching the green is on the green. On the contrary, it provides a formula that explains when a ball touching the green is on the green and when a ball touching the green is NOT on the green.
  4. Fine golfer and perpetual jerk. Aggressive little man with a complex, who has not improved with age.
  5. You are making a lot of assumptions here. OP says the player can play a stroke into the fairway. So the bush is NOT preventing a stroke or making ANY stroke unreasonable so there is no case for claiming Rule 16.1a(3) applies. I also note any time I can chip a 7 iron into the fairway, I can play that same stroke with my 4 hybrid. My point is you cannot deny a player their rights under the rule - IF the player can play a functional stroke with the 4 hybrid back into the fairway, and that cart path interferes with that functional stroke, then the player is entitled to relief. I would not like to try to sell your approach to Tiger Woods in front of the television cameras. But you are absolutely right that when it is only the player's heels touching the cart path for a 4 hybrid stroke, then the nearest point of complete relief (if relief is legitimate) is only going to be mere inches away from where the ball currently lies. Yet that opens up a legitimate relief area of up to 7-8 square yards. Is that going to help the player? I can't answer that without seeing the situation - possibly the bush still interferes, possibly not. But we can agree if the player took relief on the opposite side of the cart path from where the ball lay, London to a brick the player played from a wrong place (loss of hole).
  6. Your question was: " the definition previously said a ball touching the green is on the green. Where has that statement been moved to? I can't find it." The answer is Rule 13.1a.
  7. Bill's advice is correct but the original information is not sufficient for a definitive answer. A referee would need to know what is a reasonable stroke from the position. If a position under a bush permits a low stroke back into the fairway then it may be perfectly reasonable to play that stroke with a lower lofted club like a 4 hybrid. In that case, the player is entitled to cart path relief. But if the player needed to play a more lofted club, say 7 iron or higher, then there would be no relief as there is no interference with the path for the stroke which needs to be played.
  8. Sorry to be splitting hairs. The specific correct reference is 13.1a: "A ball is on the putting green when any part of the ball: touches the putting green.." Rule 2 is picking up broader context, including the general approach on how to treat a ball in more than one area of the course. And as the ball is on the putting green, the player does not have an entitlement to 'embedded' ball relief, but can mark the ball and repair the damage, then must replace the ball in the precise same spot.
  9. On the practice fairway or first tee is fine..... but once the round commences it's a penalty - see the first sentence of Rule 4.3.
  10. A broader benefit from the Rickie Fowler 'don't do it this way' lesson - which proved to be a different kind of 'swimmingly'.
  11. Sadly, the official got it wrong repeatedly from the get go and needed to be pointed in the right direction. Morikawa's handling of the situation was very classy.
  12. Anything you can do I can do better........
  13. Replace "lie" with "CATS" and you are good for the the money. It is not just lie, it is improving line of play (take out lump of sand in front of ball), make a mark to show line of play, build a stance by piling up sand, that sort of thing.
  14. RB's guide you otherwise in 8.1b/2. 8.1b/2 – Player Allowed to Dig in Firmly with Feet More Than Once in Taking Stance Rule 8.1b allows a player to place his or her feet firmly in taking a stance, and this may be done more than once in preparing to make a stroke. For example, a player may enter a bunker without a club, dig in with his or her feet in taking a stance to simulate playing the ball, leave to get a club, and then dig in again with his or her feet and make the stroke.
  15. That issue is unrelated to 'testing the sand', it is a breach of 8.1a, improving the conditions affecting the stroke.
  16. @iacas Just caught up with this topic. I absolutely get your argument "how can digging in with the feet prior to playing from the bunker not be testing the conditions of the sand"? It is, in simple, plain English, gaining information about the nature of the sand conditions. It is not the only reason to dig in the feet and practice swing - the player is also seeking to replicate the stroke feeling for the intended shot (including getting feet stable) - but it is a key reason. But the rules permitted it pre-2019 and that hasn't changed - that is, it is a "permitted" form of testing, different from the golf rules-defined illegitimate testing (12.2b(1)). And while Rule 12.2b(2) doesn't put any overt limits on it, I think the guidance in 8.1b(5) and 8.1b/2 implies some constraints - although we don't have RB feedback on the extent. Perhaps if tour players started to follow the approach you modelled in your video we may get more explicit guidance on that.
  17. I'm not disagreeing with the benefits of carrying and knowing how to use a rule book. But Sirtom's question was about what to do when given a wrong ruling by the official/referee. And the rule book cannot help with that, it is not in there.
  18. I wholly support players carrying and using the Rule book, phone app is much better if you can get familiar with it (everything is accessible), but the question being responded to here is not covered in the Rules.
  19. As discussed above, the answer is found in Committee Procedures 6C(10). In your case, it seems clear that no further shots were played by either player from the time you were given the incorrect ruling, you just picked up your ball after being advised of the incorrect ruling. So you should replace your ball from where it was lifted - estimating the spot if you are not exactly sure of it - and play on. In your scenario, it only becomes too late to correct when a player hits from the next tee.
  20. Yes, different situation, and the ruling has changed post Jan 2019. The question was raised again recently - ball overhanging hole but held up from dropping by a stick/leaf or whatever - and has been answered by the R&A and the USGA. This from the USGA facebook page: United States Golf Association - USGA Michele - when a ball is resting on or against an object overhanging the hole (such as a ball coming to rest against a twig across the hole), the ball is NOT holed unless the Definition of Holed is otherwise met, such as when the ball is also resting against the flagstick with part of the ball below the lip of the hole. Please note, the USGA and R&A jointly write and interpret a single set of Rules that apply to all golfers worldwide and therefore, our answers are the same. Prior to 2019, the answer to this question was addressed with a very specific equity position (that no longer exists). As mentioned above, you may be interested to hear Grant Moir of the R&A discuss this question in this video:
  21. I went nuts on speed drills for a while, including this speed the backswing advice. An unintended consequence was my swing got much shorter without me being aware at the time. (Not blaming the theory, just the dope with the club in hand.) So buyer beware.
  22. Bumping the grip ends of the putter avoids this problem.
  23. Absolutely, remember that Jordan Spieth fellow? People were rushing into Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods comparisons.
  24. That has no relevance. #35 advises something you can do and this example fits that situation. #31 advises something you cannot do and this example does not fit that situation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...