Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

DaveP043

Member
  • Posts

    3,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by DaveP043

  1. I believe, without any firsthand knowledge, that these situations were a.big part of the decision to allow a Committee to define areas without water as Penalty Areas. Before that change, an area had to at least occasionally carry water to be legitimately treated as a Hazard. This is one of the many ways that expansion of golf to different climates has fueled rule changes.
  2. I never doubted that. I've kind of become the "rule-guy" around here, and just wanted to make sure folks understand the rule. There's plenty of room in golf for all levels of rules observance, from the most casual players making up their own rules as they go, to seasoned competitors who're required to follow the rules when they play.
  3. Just be careful using that feature in a proper competition. For most casual play, I'd guess nobody will complain. But the Rules specifically do NOT allow using a device to: "Interpreting distance or directional information (such as using a device to get a recommended line of play or club selection based on the location of the player’s ball)" This is in Rule 4.3a(1). Again, I don't have a problem with its use in casual play, I just like folks to learn about the Rules.
  4. I didn't see my particular strength in the potential answers. I excel at the post-round drinks and story-telling (lying) in the bar, assuming that I have someone to drive me home afterwards.
  5. I'd suggest reading "Lowest Score Wins" by Erik Barzeski. The book discusses essentially all aspects of decision making, starting from choices in what to practice and how to do it, to on-course choices like club selection and intended line of play. Its based largely on the same principles as Mark Broadie's Stroke Gained ideas, and his "Every Shot Counts" isn't a bad choice if you want to understand strokes gained concepts a little better.
  6. Welcome to the forum, from another NOVA player. I'm in Reston, and play at Stoneleigh GC in Round Hill.
  7. Its an interesting question. In a perfect world (for me) we'd both play well, and I'd win. I've played in a few matches like that, and they're the absolute best. But I can't say I'm rooting FOR my Opponent. I try to stay kind of neutral, to expect them to play well on each shot, while I understand that they WILL make some mistakes. I don't necessarily hope for a mistake, but I'm usually not saddened either. Does that evade the question enough, or should I go on?
  8. Logic is backed up by statistical evaluation. Mark Boadie's Every Shot Counts has a chapter about putting, and the numbers make sense. If you're close enough to have a reasonable chance of getting the line exactly right, leaving a putt short is giving up an opportunity to make it. And if you're that close, you're unlikely to blow a putt 5 or 6 feet past. The front-to-back dispersion from 5 feet, say, is probably less than 3 feet, so make the front of that dispersion at the hole, and the worst putt will still only be 3 feet past. From 20 feet, however, you're not likely to get the line exactly right, and your front-to-back distance might be closer to 5 feet. If you make the CENTER of that pattern at hole high, your worst results will be about 2.5 feet short or long, minimizing 3-putts. THAT is what the article is getting at, shifting away from the "get it to the hole" mentality for most putts.
  9. One thing I disagree with: "This one is going to ruffle some feathers: on the green, roughly half your misses should be short of the hole." If the putt is beyond maybe 10 or 12 feet, I agree completely, the center of your pattern should be at the hole. Its more about avoiding 3-putts than making long ones.. However, shorter "makeable" putts should almost all finish past the hole, otherwise you're giving up opportunities to make putts.
  10. I believe this is a choice made by your local Golf Association, the New Jersey State Golf Association, you might try to contact them here: https://njsga.org/contact
  11. I am still not convinced. You're lined up on one blade of grass, but I see other blades that have changed position. Do you know if your "reference blade" has changed position too. Do you know if the camera has changed position at all? This must be a hand held cam, not a stationary mount. But accepting that the ball has moved, how far has it moved? That appears to me to be something like 1/8". Is that enough to "reasonably seen with the naked eye"? Thats the standard required I'm 20.2c. Remember Lexi Thompson, she replaced her ball about half a ball diameter away, and lots of folks thought her penalty was unfair. As I said, I'm just not convinced that he deserved to be penalized for moving the ball, or for grounding his club behind the ball repeatedly.
  12. This might be the right time to point out rule 20.2c, concerning the "naked eye" standard to be used when reviewing video.
  13. Again, seeing a ball move a small distance vertically isn't always possible, he may not have seen that. And you're telling me that your judgement of that is better than an experienced official reviewing the same video, and possibly other video that we (including Brandel) don't have access to? I don't agree. I admit I'm not sure the ball returned to its original location, but but its not "clear cheating". As to his "wedge machinations", I saw the wedge being grounded several times behind the ball. We didn't see his body or his hands, we have no idea whether he pressed down excessively. And 8.1b(4) allows a player to ground his club lightly either right behind or in front of his ball, even if it improves the Conditions Affecting The Stroke. Its possible he did improve the CATS, but that is specifically acceptable under the rules, as long as he didn't press the club into the ground.
  14. Yeah, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was penalized for a 9.4 breach, if the ball was determined to have moved. I objected to the "clearly cheated" claim, because a small downward movement of the ball isn't necessarily visible to the player. The only way to claim he was "cheating" would be to say he specifically pressed down when he grounded his club, and that simply isn't at all clear from the video.
  15. I agree that the ball moved, there's no question in my mind. What I'm less certain about is whether the ball returned to its original location or not. I do trust the experienced officials who review video for the tour to do their best. If they're not certain the ball moved (per the definition in the rules), there shouldn't be a penalty. I think a lot of "armchair officials" see any movement of the ball and think that's a breach, not understanding the actual rule.
  16. Did he really? Do you have a video showing that he did something more than resting the club behind the ball? Yes, he did that a few times, maybe you can find a rule that limits the number of times he can ground the club lightly behind the ball. Now he may have caused the ball to move, I'm not certain that it returned to its original position, it might have settled more deeply into the grass, but experienced people reviewed the video to make that call. Vertical movement is something he realistically might not have seen from above.
  17. To add one more thing, if you DO decide to take S&D relief and drop inside the Penalty Area (option 3), and THEN decide that you can't play the ball, you can take relief outside the Penalty Area for one more penalty stroke.
  18. I want to understand exactly what happened. Are you saying you made a stroke at a ball in the Red Penalty Area? And the ball travelled "past the pond", (out of the Penalty Area?) up a slope, and then rolled back down the stroke into the Penalty Area? Look to Rule 17.2 for this. You may take the usually Lateral or Back on the Line Relief, and the Reference Point would be where the ball last crossed the margin of the PA, where it rolled back down the hill into the pond. You may take Stroke and Distance relief by dropping in the area where you played the stroke from the Penalty Area. Or you may take S&D relief by playing from the spot where you played the stroke that ended up in the Penalty Area the first time. Each of those relief options has a Penalty of 1 stroke. This is shown on Drawing 2, Figure 17.2a.
  19. I have a pretty good year for golf trips. My wife and I made our yearly trip to stay with friends in Palm Springs, and got in four rounds, then drove north to play at Pebble Beach (including Spanish Bay and Spyglass Hill). The Pebble part of the trip was at my wife's urging, I'm a lucky guy. Then we got a surprise invitation to go to the Masters Wednesday practice round, after which we'll go spend a few days at Sea Island. Oh, and we're going to WIlliamsburg VA to play in a VSGA event at Golden Horseshoe Monday and Tuesday. For those who're in VA, these are good events, and at $65 per round, an outstanding deal! I think we have five more days of VSGA golf planned this year, including two days at the Wintergreen resort. Next up, we'll be volunteer hole marshals at the US Open at Pinehurst. We have our villa at Talamore reserved tor about 10 or 11 days, so we'll manage to get some golf in. I'll also be back there around Thanksgiving for two full weeks. I think that's about it.
  20. LIV giving up allows them to continue to whine, and to avoid getting significantly reduced points due to their format, field size and strength, lack of access for new players, etc. The two Opens allow for anyone to qualify if they can perform well in the qualifiers. If a player qualifies, and performs well in that opportunity, they'll get an exemption for one or more future years. But the "stars" on the LIV tour would have to swallow their pride and compete alongside regular joes in those qualifiers, and run the risk of being shown to be less than stellar.
  21. LIV would still have issues with the small fields and little or no way to earn a spot on their tour. Its one thing to be in the top 10 of the same 56 players, its a different thing to compare those 56 players to the rest of the golfing universe. Kind of a "big fish in a small pond" thing. Gooch has spoken out, but its hard to put him in the top 50 when he's missed the cut in about 1/3 of his tournaments, and finished 34-cut-cut in his last 3 majors. I wouldn't have a problem with LIV getting ranking points, but I think 40% is generous. The field sizes and 54 hole format are negatives, and some of those 56 players are pretty bad. LIV "purchased" players to make publicity waves, and not all of them are particularly good. But even if LIV did get some reduced ranking points, the players (and particularly Norman) would continue to complain, anything short of full PGA Tour points wouldn't satisfy them.
  22. I'd guess the average is even higher, maybe 3 over par net, so averaging 90 or 91. But I do agree, that player would be doing really well to be 8 or 10 strokes better than average, given two chances for every shot. Even par is our if the question, in my opinion. Beyond that, most players would be exhausted before the end of the round taking double the normal number of full swings!
  23. I'm currently using a Sub70 949 5-wood I reviewed a couple of years ago: If you read the reviews, all of us were very positive about the Sub70 line. The price is good, they have a money-back guarantee, a fair number of shaft options, its certainly worth looking at.
  24. I agree. Have you considered how to word a rule so that it can be consistently understood by all golfers?
  25. Are you all arguing in favor of preferred lies any time you're in the fairway? Or would you try to define specific circumstances that warrant relief, defining what constitutes a divot, and defining when it ceases to be a divot?
×
×
  • Create New...