139 replies to this topic

[Sawgrass]

Newby, on 19 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

QEight, on 19 January 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the explanation posted on the USGA website:
...
The Rules of Golf include a Local Rule found in Appendix I that is used by most tours and courses around the world, including the European Tour which sanctions the Abu Dhabi event. This Local Rule extends relief for balls embedded in their own pitch to all other areas through the green, but it includes two exceptions.

Is this local rule actually used by most coursed around the world? Our club uses normal "closely mown" rule, and only during very wet conditions the LR is in effect.

I doubt that most courses use it except when conditions demand. I have only seen it once in scores of amateur events but the pro tours have it on their hardcards.

I read that statement as meaning the local rule in Appendix I is the local rule that most courses use when they choose to employ a local rule on the topic.  (They use that specimen local rule instead of some other, perhaps also legal, modification.)

[QEight]

Sawgrass, on 19 January 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Newby, on 19 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

QEight, on 19 January 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

MileHighClub, on 18 January 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Here is the explanation posted on the USGA website:
...
The Rules of Golf include a Local Rule found in Appendix I that is used by most tours and courses around the world, including the European Tour which sanctions the Abu Dhabi event. This Local Rule extends relief for balls embedded in their own pitch to all other areas through the green, but it includes two exceptions.

Is this local rule actually used by most coursed around the world? Our club uses normal "closely mown" rule, and only during very wet conditions the LR is in effect.

I doubt that most courses use it except when conditions demand. I have only seen it once in scores of amateur events but the pro tours have it on their hardcards.

I read that statement as meaning the local rule in Appendix I is the local rule that most courses use when they choose to employ a local rule on the topic.  (They use that specimen local rule instead of some other, perhaps also legal, modification.)

I (mis)read USGA statement meaning that this LR is in effect all the time on most courses. My mistake.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1358684466' post='6263899']
[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1358637926' post='6261491']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1358637457' post='6261465']
[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1358629141' post='6260755']
[quote name='MileHighClub' timestamp='1358530371' post='6253647']
Here is the explanation posted on the USGA website:
...
The Rules of Golf include a Local Rule found in Appendix I that is used by most tours and courses around the world, including the European Tour which sanctions the Abu Dhabi event. This Local Rule extends relief for balls embedded in their own pitch to all other areas through the green, but it includes two exceptions.
[/quote]

Is this local rule actually used by most coursed around the world? Our club uses normal "closely mown" rule, and only during very wet conditions the LR is in effect.
[/quote]

I doubt that most courses use it except when conditions demand. I have only seen it once in scores of amateur events but the pro tours have it on their hardcards.
[/quote]

I read that statement as meaning the local rule in Appendix I is the local rule that most courses use when they choose to employ a local rule on the topic.  (They use that specimen local rule instead of some other, perhaps also legal, modification.)
[/quote]
I (mis)read USGA statement meaning that this LR is in effect all the time on most courses. My mistake.
[/quote]

I don't know that your interpretation is a "mistake" QEight.  It is rather ambigious IMO.

[Newby]

Yes, I find the USGA statement odd. Most tours - yes. Most courses - doubtful.

[PedronNiall]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358568375' post='6257773']
[quote name='PedronNiall' timestamp='1358559059' post='6256949']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1358555524' post='6256597']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1358554985' post='6256543']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1358542298' post='6255215']
[quote name='MileHighClub' timestamp='1358542243' post='6255199']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1358541988' post='6255175']
Andy said that a spectator asked an official why the drop was allowed in that area and that is what caused the official to radio to Andy to have him investigate it. So a spectator was the reason the penalty was given. Otherwise, Tiger might be playing the weekend.
[/quote]

If Woods had not broken the rules, he would probably be playing the weekend, but he did break the rules so he isn't playing the weekend.  It isn't the fault of the spectators, the rules official, or Kaymers, only Woods' fault.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was the spectator's fault. I said the incident was brought to light by a spectator. Woods broke the rule and he is responsible for that.
[/quote]

It was actually brought to light by two journalists who were just trying to get their stories right. They had no idea there was a violation, they were just asking what the ruling was...
[/quote]

Do you truly believe it was something as innocent as that? Better check who those journalists where. Europeans for sure, Tiger haters to the bone, who could not resist the opportunity to rob him of certain victory in this tournament. Or maybe one of them was Feinstein, that would explain everything.
Sarcasm off.
I allow myself one rant per season, because some Tiger fans are way byond ridiculous. But I will now try my best to restrain myself and not even open threads which have "tiger" in the title anymore for the remainder of 2013.
[/quote]
One of the reporters was from the Golf Channel.
[/quote]

No, the reporter was from Golfweek, and not exactly one of Tiger's fans, in my opinion. Still, the rule was violated.
[/quote]

Rex Hoggard from TGC was discussing it again specifically this morning. He was one of the two who brought it up.

[MrElculver2424]

[quote name='PedronNiall' timestamp='1358778058' post='6269751']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358568375' post='6257773']
[quote name='PedronNiall' timestamp='1358559059' post='6256949']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1358555524' post='6256597']
[quote name='kevcarter' timestamp='1358554985' post='6256543']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1358542298' post='6255215']
[quote name='MileHighClub' timestamp='1358542243' post='6255199']
[quote name='MrElculver2424' timestamp='1358541988' post='6255175']
Andy said that a spectator asked an official why the drop was allowed in that area and that is what caused the official to radio to Andy to have him investigate it. So a spectator was the reason the penalty was given. Otherwise, Tiger might be playing the weekend.
[/quote]

If Woods had not broken the rules, he would probably be playing the weekend, but he did break the rules so he isn't playing the weekend.  It isn't the fault of the spectators, the rules official, or Kaymers, only Woods' fault.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was the spectator's fault. I said the incident was brought to light by a spectator. Woods broke the rule and he is responsible for that.
[/quote]

It was actually brought to light by two journalists who were just trying to get their stories right. They had no idea there was a violation, they were just asking what the ruling was...
[/quote]

Do you truly believe it was something as innocent as that? Better check who those journalists where. Europeans for sure, Tiger haters to the bone, who could not resist the opportunity to rob him of certain victory in this tournament. Or maybe one of them was Feinstein, that would explain everything.
Sarcasm off.
I allow myself one rant per season, because some Tiger fans are way byond ridiculous. But I will now try my best to restrain myself and not even open threads which have "tiger" in the title anymore for the remainder of 2013.
[/quote]
One of the reporters was from the Golf Channel.
[/quote]

No, the reporter was from Golfweek, and not exactly one of Tiger's fans, in my opinion. Still, the rule was violated.
[/quote]

Rex Hoggard from TGC was discussing it again specifically this morning. He was one of the two who brought it up.
[/quote]

Yes, I heard it was Rex Hoggard too, who runs the GC Tiger Tracker on Twitter. Anyway, it doesn't matter who it was. Rule was broken (no free drop in sandy area in non-closely mown area) and it's on to Torrey Pines.

[Newby]

Newby, on 20 January 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yes, I find the USGA statement odd. Most tours - yes. Most courses - doubtful.

Having done a bit of research it seems to be used more widely around the world than I had experienced

Edited by Newby, 21 January 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[jlbos83]

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

[rogolf]

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

You have stated this difference between the R&A and USGA incorrectly, in fact, backwards.  The R&A wants it to remain a local Rule, implemented when required, because of the nature of links golf courses where there is lots of sand off the closely-mown areas.  There are not many links courses in USGA jurisdiction.

[jlbos83]

rogolf, on 21 January 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

You have stated this difference between the R&A and USGA incorrectly, in fact, backwards.  The R&A wants it to remain a local Rule, implemented when required, because of the nature of links golf courses where there is lots of sand off the closely-mown areas.  There are not many links courses in USGA jurisdiction.

I guess I didn't recall quite correctly!  I was pretty sure it was an area of disagreement, which is why the local rule exists, which does add to the cunfusion.  Thanks for the correction!

[rogolf]

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

rogolf, on 21 January 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

You have stated this difference between the R&A and USGA incorrectly, in fact, backwards.  The R&A wants it to remain a local Rule, implemented when required, because of the nature of links golf courses where there is lots of sand off the closely-mown areas.  There are not many links courses in USGA jurisdiction.

I guess I didn't recall quite correctly!  I was pretty sure it was an area of disagreement, which is why the local rule exists, which does add to the cunfusion.  Thanks for the correction!

Imo, "disagreement" is too strong a term for this - it's just recognition by each that conditions are different in different parts of the world, and it's better to leave it as an acceptable local Rule that can be implemented by the Committee when required.

[jlbos83]

Well said.

[minitour]

I love that the boulder is now 1,000 pounds.  That's awesome.  A growing rock.

[jnradioactive]

minitour, on 21 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

I love that the boulder is now 1,000 pounds.  That's awesome.  A growing rock.

Shrinking rock actually, do a little research and you see estimates on that type and size rock is ~2000lbs.

Just one of many u can find if u took ten seconds, instead of wallowing in your ignorance ...
http://www.fairwaysg...cle.php?id=1180

[Mr. Bean]

PingEye2, on 18 January 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

The rules of golf give relief for an embedded ball in closely mown areas only; however, all the professional tours worldwide extend his rule to through the green with the exception of sand. Hence the belief he was entitled to relief.

I honestly started to read this thread thru but stopped here (after having read a bunch of messages by illiterate persons...).

PingEye2 here says that as the Rule says you cannot get relief from place X due to the sand Tiger thought he would be entitled to get relief X despite the sand and that is why Tiger made an incorrect decision. Well described, PingEye2! No wonder Tiger erred...

[Mr. Bean]

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

Hate to shatter your illusions but PGA Tour also has this Local Rule in effect, as described in PGA Hard Card 2012.

[QEight]

Newby, on 21 January 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Newby, on 20 January 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yes, I find the USGA statement odd. Most tours - yes. Most courses - doubtful.

Having done a bit of research it seems to be used more widely around the world than I had experienced

As a permament LR?

btw, how this is written on Tour Hard Cards? Is it just a reference to Appendix 1 or page, or is it actually written out? If there is just a reference, then it is not very clear as the exceptions are only in Appendix 1b. This part could be made clearer and maybe remove 1a altogether.

[Newby]

1) Yes

2) To the best of my recollection they refer to the page number in the book. This is common procedure wher the words are already written in the book. There is no point in cluttering up the hard card with superflous verbiage.  
I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to Appendix 1b and 1a. The words of the LR are in Appendix I Part B 4a.
The exceptions are inherent in the Local Rule. The European PGA have an additional exception (on the card itself) excluding the stacked turf faces of bunkers.
If a committee wanted to ignore the exceptions, I suspect a) that they would need apprioval from the R&A/USGA and b) that they would highlight the point on the hard card.

Incidentally, I suspect that Woods was not unaware of the LR itself nor the exception. His problem was not knowing or querying the status of the ground his ball was on. Didn't he make a comment about that after McFee spoke to him?

Edited by Newby, 22 January 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[jlbos83]

Mr. Bean, on 21 January 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

jlbos83, on 21 January 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

If I recall correctly this area is one where the USGA and R&A disagree a bit.  The USGA is of the opinion that embedded ball relief should only apply in "closely mown" areas, the R&A thinks it should be through the green.  (Both assuming normal course conditions.)  The compromise was for the rule to be as it is, with the approved specimen local rule available for use.  I would not be surprised if that local rule is widely used in areas governed by the R&A, though I am sure there are exceptions in both directions.

Hate to shatter your illusions but PGA Tour also has this Local Rule in effect, as described in PGA Hard Card 2012.

Not sure what the illusion was.... the PGA Tour isn't the USGA or the R&A, and is free to do whatever they choose.  As we may or may not see with respect to the proposed anchoring rule.  I was aware that the PGA choses to use the local rule.  Unfortunately, that doesn't have any affect on me!

[Newby]

Mr. Bean, on 21 January 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Hate to shatter your illusions but PGA Tour also has this Local Rule in effect, as described in PGA Hard Card 2012.

Do you mean the PGA, the PGA of America or the US PGA Tour?