Ruler

It is on the R&A website, USGA is a bit slow...😆 D-7 But you can find it in the Clarification 1/2021. That must be found on the USGA site. Yup, here it is .

So if that would happen in a competition where you are the referee you would wait for the RBs to answer?

I asked the opinion of two experienced referees and both said that in their opinion it is the ball that counts, not the insect. Meaning, whether the insect is on the putting green or airborne makes no difference as long as the ball has been hit from the putting green. Any comments?

I asked the opinion of two experienced referees and both said that using ear plugs to eliminate distractions would fall under R4.3a(4) as being analogous to listening music with the same purpose. Any comments?

That re-hit is compulsory equally to a putt holed and missed.

I wonder if the Rule is actually saying that. It just sounds strange to me if the whereabouts of the insect would be the determining factor and not the deflection. After all, the Rule seems to be there to protect the player from any outside influence when playing a ball from the putting green, not just the ones laying on the PG (eg. a ball falling on the moving ball).

You are missing the core of this issue. So, let us change the situation: the insect lands AFTER the player has struck his ball. The rest stays the same. Happy now? P.S: I cannot find anything in the Rules about deliberately hitting an insect on the putting green. Can you?

That gives us something to ponder. Say a player's ball putted from the putting green rolls towards the hole and on its path there is an insect of considerable size. Just before the ball hits the insect it spreads its wings and lifts itself up from the surface of the PG and at that point the ball hits the insect and is deflected. Would that be a case where 11.1b Exc2 would not be applied but the ball would be played as it lies?

I thought I just explained what you seem to have copied from Wikipedia...

You would.

Not quite but close. Arnold Palmer wrote about this event at 1963 Phoenix Open in his great book Playing by The Rules. According to him Don waited for 7 minutes because in his opinion the ball was moving. Finally the ball fell in and Don said 'Told you it was moving'. However, I have read another description from that event according to which the ball did not fall into the hole but after those 7-8 minutes Don yielded under pressure from other competitors and putted the ball in. Whichever is true, the 10 second Rule was drafted shortly after and released in 1964.

But as the next stroke was conceded it never took place and was counted as one additional stroke, thus 3+1=4.

You are correct but I was referring to the case at hand where the ball is at rest and that makes all the difference. The point is that there was a next stroke to be expected which is not the case if a ball is moving and makes its way into the hole.

That cannot be. After a concession the ball in question is no longer in play. If it were the player picking up his ball after a concession would be in breach of 9.4b.

An interesting issue. Rules do not specifically mention ear plugs but under 4.3a(4) an action not allowed is listening to music to eliminate distractions. As ear plugs are used for the same purpose I would say using them is a breach of R4.3a. Unless there is a medical reason for using them.

Assuming A's ball was at rest and not overhanging when B conceded his next stroke makes the total score of 4. What happens to A's ball after concession makes no difference whatsoever.

I checked it and I had mixed that up with the previous handicap system. Indeed there is no mentioning of temporary greens in the WHS. Then I called our NA and asked what is the role of a TG. The answer was that they are regarded as normal greens and ball is to be played into the hole. That is how we do it here in Finland.

Why would you treat a temporary green differently from the Rules point of view and for handicap purposes? Our version of WHS says that a score is valid if there are no more than one temp green per 9 holes and the overall measure of the course is not reduced more than 50 meters from the nominal value per 9 holes. Thus you play the course as laid out and count your strokes like any other time.

Dave suggested that a new thread should be created so here we are. In the original thread Dave wrote this: 'In my mind, I'd treat a hole with a temporary green as a hole not played. For Handicap Purposes, that means you'd record par plus any handicap strokes to be applied.' In my country there are two issues in the WHS about temporary greens that regulate whether a score is postable or not (may be different in the US): - only 1 TG per 9 holes, i.e. max 2 per 18 holes - the measure of the course must not be less than 100 meters from the nominal value If those two conditions are met the round is postable in my country.

I did not read all the 65 pages but I'll comment on those two bullet points. 1. Agree. Sometimes you have good luck and sometimes bad luck. You just have to live with it. 2. Defining a divot hole has come up in every single discussion on this subject on every forum I have ever visited, so I would be astonished if nobody had touched the issue on those previous 64 pages. Nevertheless, that is the reason why divot holes can never be defined as GUR as there is no way how to draw the line. I truly wonder why this seems to be so hard to understand for those requiring free relief from a divot hole.

Good for you but how does that relate to using weighted donuts? I use hand warmers all the time when it is cold, they are just great.

Thanks! I started to read that Rule before I asked but stopped before the 2nd chapter where the answer was 😆

What about foursome? A and B are a side and A makes a stroke on the 1st tee. Has B also commenced his round? Could not find any answer on the Rules or Interpretations.

It is the method I am wondering. Around here it was recommended not to touch the flagstick and nobody did. So the outcome must have been the same as in your country. What bothers me is that as the Rules of Golf clearly allow you to remove the flagstick I find it strange to prohibit it. In fact, from the Rules point of view I do not see that kind of prohibition even feasible. After all, if someone wanted to remove it they could use disposable gloves. But as I said, around here flagsticks remained untouched as well without any prohibition. Off topic: it is rather interesting that in the view of current knowledge not a single case of covid has been proven to have originated from a surface. So it is possible that all the fuss about not touching flagsticks was for nothing. But better safe than sorry.

It is a well known fact that Phil is not a popular guy among the PGA Tour players.