Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Sandbagger

About m052310

  • Rank

Your Golf Game

  • Handedness

Recent Profile Visitors

494 profile views
  1. I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know." Why is this one worse? If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules. If you include the ball not being on grass in your definition, that's pretty hard to abuse. If they aren't virtually certain (or whatever certainty you want to assign) then they're cheating. If we're going to ban cheaters from golf courses, at least I'll finally be able to get whatever tee time I want. As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread ho
  2. Absolutely agree the best rules are the most clear, specific, and equally applied. But I don't think the inability to draft a perfect rule is a strong argument against having a better than pretty darn good one. We all know that there are rules in golf that require some judgment/estimation, especially for everyone playing without the benefit of spotters (stuff like where a ball crossed a penalty area or OB, for example). Also agree that reasonably certain leaves some wiggle room. You could go with virtually certain (95% sure a players swing caused it) since known is pretty unlikely in this
  3. I know this wasn't directed at me. I hope you don't mind me jumping into the discussion; slow night here. I don't completely see why its a problem that some golfers might flub it on applying the definition as long as the definition makes it clear to the vast majority of reasonable golfers. This reminds me of when Bryson tried to get relief from the fire ant (I think he went with trying to call it a dangerous animal?) and everyone just laughed at him, including, I assume, the rules official that made the ruling once the cameras weren't around. If you're reasonably certain the spot the ball lies
  4. The local rule explanation says "For purposes of this Local Rule, “fairway” means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less." I'm copying and pasting from here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/golfs-new-rules-stroke-and-distance.html. It can be argued that it isn't a good definition (its clearly circular, much like the definition of putting green which is the surface specifically prepared for putting - I'm paraphrasing but I think that's pretty close), and it is not found in the definitions section of the
  5. When the first round is in play, are there really any rules beyond it pays to be a winner?
  6. I'm not buying the arguments about not being able to define what we need to to make a new rule work. Consider for example: -In explaining 2019 local rule E-5 (alternative to stroke and distance), the USGA defines fairway as "any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less." I have trouble believing there would be much struggle to figure out where the fairway is based on that definition, which the USGA has already deemed good enough for local rule purposes. - The Rules define an animal hole as including "any area on the ground pushed up or altered as a resu
  7. I actually had to google it. Apparently the e-word is more common but they mean the same. I went with what the rules of golf use.
  8. I think it was 10. As Faldo put it, "I've never seen a ball embed after a bounce."
  9. I mind. When I'm a single, I try hard to find times of day that give me the best chance of staying a single. I try not to let on at all that I mind in the inevitable event that I do get paired, though.
  10. I'm a lawyer who works for a judge and a former Navy pilot.
  11. m052310


  • 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...