36 replies to this topic

[Sawgrass]

mke1078, on 30 January 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

I do undestand what the op is stating.  I just joined wrx and it does seem that some are extra quick to critique language used even when it has no impact on the true intent of the question.  The op should have just asked about proper play of a plugged ball so as to not get a dissertation on four ball or how to play a lost ball.

I just re-read this entire thread after reading your post.  I don't believe that anyone was being quick or short with the OP, but rather everyone was polite -- and helpful as well.

The OP asked a question and had it answered.  One poster said there was an implication of match play, which there was.  The OP attempted to defend his technically incorrect language, and it was pointed out why the poster was not mistaken about the implication of match play.  There was much to be learned here, but that doesn't seem to be the way things worked out, and I'm hard pressed to find fault with anyone here who was trying to help.

If everyone is willing to be open to learn something new, great things can happen here.  The rules are complicated, and technical.  You frequently can't have a cogent conversation about them without being specific about the language you use.  There is a sound reason why the Rules' definition section comes before the actual Rules themselves, and why each of the actual Rules has a comment about definitions at its beginning.  It's not done to be annoying about language, it's done to be clear about rulings.  Really!

Edited by Sawgrass, 30 January 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[mke1078]

Sawgrass, on 30 January 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

mke1078, on 30 January 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

I do undestand what the op is stating.  I just joined wrx and it does seem that some are extra quick to critique language used even when it has no impact on the true intent of the question.  The op should have just asked about proper play of a plugged ball so as to not get a dissertation on four ball or how to play a lost ball.

I just re-read this entire thread after reading your post.  I don't believe that anyone was being quick or short with the OP, but rather everyone was polite -- and helpful as well.

The OP asked a question and had it answered.  One poster said there was an implication of match play, which there was.  The OP attempted to defend his technically incorrect language, and it was pointed out why the poster was not mistaken about the implication of match play.  There was much to be learned here, but that doesn't seem to be the way things worked out, and I'm hard pressed to find fault with anyone here who was trying to help.

If everyone is willing to be open to learn something new, great things can happen here.  The rules are complicated, and technical.  You frequently can't have a cogent conversation about them without being specific about the language you use.  There is a sound reason why the Rules' definition section comes before the actual Rules themselves, and why each of the actual Rules has a comment about definitions at its beginning.  It's not done to be annoying about language, it's done to be clear about rulings.  Really!

Sawgrass, I agree with you in regards to the technical inaccuracies in his posts.  2 v 2 best ball that the team with the best combined score wins being one of my favs.  He was truly just asking about how to play a plugged ball as he mentioned in a secondary post.  My point is that from the reading I have done, a lot of people take a topic to places further than an op intended, seemingly to show off knowledge of golf rules.  I agree that furthering knowledge of the game and its rules is good for all.  There are tons of posts on these boards where things get way to heated for no good reason.  Just look at the posts where they are defining competitor. It is endless and mind numbing for it to get that far in a post where the question was only about how to play a plugged ball.

Note to the op, stop giving the background as to how you wound up in that situation.  Just ask your question and we won't have a thread 2pages long where more than 1/2 of the responses are not about your question rather than the technicalities of how you got to your original question.

[Sawgrass]

mke1078, on 30 January 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

Sawgrass, I agree with you in regards to the technical inaccuracies in his posts.  2 v 2 best ball that the team with the best combined score wins being one of my favs.  He was truly just asking about how to play a plugged ball as he mentioned in a secondary post.  My point is that from the reading I have done, a lot of people take a topic to places further than an op intended, seemingly to show off knowledge of golf rules.  I agree that furthering knowledge of the game and its rules is good for all.  There are tons of posts on these boards where things get way to heated for no good reason.  Just look at the posts where they are defining competitor. It is endless and mind numbing for it to get that far in a post where the question was only about how to play a plugged ball.

Note to the op, stop giving the background as to how you wound up in that situation.  Just ask your question and we won't have a thread 2pages long where more than 1/2 of the responses are not about your question rather than the technicalities of how you got to your original question.

Mke, I hear you, but I see things differently in this thread.  (I'm not defending others you've read.)

IMO by post #3 the OP's embedded ball question was answered.  From that point it seems that people were trying to be helpful in other ways.  Showing off?  Maybe.  Or maybe just being helpful.  But as long as the information is accurate, I'm easily going to give the benefit of the doubt to the posters who are adding things.  I like to read them!  In fact, many times I've learned things from those "after the answer" discussions.

[rockinar]

Jspangler, on 30 January 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I will start by giving the situation. I was playing with my buddy's 2 vs 2 best ball and the loser bought a round. So we were not playing for a lot but we were playing for something. The hole was a par 3 and my opponent hit a nice high draw and if looked good for the tee. Get up there and can't find his ball. We looked for 5 minutes and I told him he would just have to take a drop. He gets mad and goes on and makes a 5. After that he looked for his ball and found it plugged behind the green. He asked if he could play that ball and I said sure but why it's plugged and you will be lucky to get a 5 from there. He said no its plugged I get a lift clean and place. We argued a bit and I knew there was no way you would get rewarded for hitting a poor shot. I will state it would be like a second cut rough and I know the rule states through the green at fairway length can be lifted cleaned and place but was I wrong in this situation?

1) Lost ball is not "a drop". It's "back to the last tee ground", in this case the tee box.

2) Yes, he can lift, clean and place it......in his pocket and go to the next hole and scratch down his 5. He can't play the ball.

Edited by rockinar, 31 January 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[Huntster]

As someone who is fairly ignorant of many of the rules I find myself reading all the threads when it comes to rules to help educate myself.

Now in some of these threads there a few people who basically say if you don't play by the exact letter of the rules then you can't even call yourself a golfer and are quite condescending in their tone.

IMO there was none of this in this thread but rather people explaining the rules to help further explain. I just try to read these threads in a factual way and ignore the holier than thou type of stuff that occasionally pops us.

[kevcarter]

mke1078, on 30 January 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

How many here have within their foursome been searching for a lost ball, without a stopwatch, then to have that person say ill go back and re hit.  10 seconds after that, someone finds the ball.  How many actually go back to the tee?

Hi mke1078,

I just wanted to come back to this post to make sure there is no misunderstanding...

If within 5 minutes, the player does not have to go back, and may play his original ball. There is not such a thing a "declaring" a ball lost, something has to take place for it to be lost, such as the five minutes being up, putting another ball into play...

Even the act of walking back doesn't deem the ball to be lost, as long as the 5 minutes hasn't elapsed.

You may have understood this, and my post is for naught, just making sure...


Lost Ball

A ball is deemed “lost” if:

a. It is not found or identified as his by the player within five minutes after the player’s side or his or their caddies have begun to search for it; or

b. The player has made a stroke at a provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be or from a point nearer the hole than that place (see Rule 27-2b); or

c. The player has put another ball into play under penalty of stroke and distance under Rule 26-1a, 27-1 or 28a; or

d. The player has put another ball into play because it is known or virtually certain that the ball, which has not been found, has been moved by an outside agency (see Rule 18-1), is in an obstruction (see Rule 24-3), is in an abnormal ground condition (see Rule 25-1c) or is in a water hazard (see Rule 26-1b or c); or

e. The player has made a stroke at a substituted ball.

Time spent in playing a wrong ball is not counted in the five-minute period allowed for search.



27-1/1

Original Ball Found Within Five-Minute Search Period After Another Ball Teed

Q. A player plays from the teeing ground, searches briefly for his ball and then goes back and tees another ball. Before he plays the teed ball, and within the ve-minute search period, the original ball is found. May the player abandon the teed ball and play the original ball?

A. Yes. The teed ball was not in play since the player had not yet made a stroke at it — see Definition of "Ball in Play" — and the original ball was not lost — see Definition of "Lost Ball."

[turtleback]

Huntster, on 31 January 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

As someone who is fairly ignorant of many of the rules I find myself reading all the threads when it comes to rules to help educate myself.

Now in some of these threads there a few people who basically say if you don't play by the exact letter of the rules then you can't even call yourself a golfer and are quite condescending in their tone.

IMO there was none of this in this thread but rather people explaining the rules to help further explain. I just try to read these threads in a factual way and ignore the holier than thou type of stuff that occasionally pops us.

It seems to me there is a difference when people are sticklers in other forums.  In actual play, if I'm not in a tournament and I'm not playing a match against someone, nor am I playing with a member of my club, I don't really care whether they play by the rules or not.  It is their business how they play, not mine.  In those three situation I have a responsibility to protect the field, protect myself, and protect the integrity of my club's handicaps, respectively.  But if I don't have any of those specific responsibilities I don;t gcreifsomeone is taking mulligans, using a footwedge, or conceding themselves 6 foot putts.

But this is a Rules forum, and if answers are not given strictly according to the rules HERE then where will they?  I don't understand why someone would come to a Rules Forum and ask a question about one rule in a situation where 3 different rules are being broken.  The OPs situation was very simple.  The ball was lost.  At that point any consideration **under the rules** about a plugged lie are moot.  A better way to ask the question might have been, "If we had found the plugged ball before the 5 minutes was up, what would the rule have been on the plugged ball."

But I think it is unfair for people who are responding to questions specifically in the Rules Forum, to be expected to do anything other than give answers that, to the best of the ability and knowledge, are strictly acording to the rules.  And part of that is using the correct terminology.  It makes no more sense to use a general dictionary definition of a golf term than it does to use a general dictionary definition for a legal term.  Speciallized areas have specialized terms.  If a questioner doesn't know the proper term then, IMO, it is better to describe the specific situation without using golf-specific terms, although I realize that can sometimes be difficult.  But then when someone corrects the misuse of a golf-specific term the correction maybe should be accepted rather than argued with?