Charley Hoffman

[DaveP043]

14 minutes ago, LICC said:

I know you prefer to keep the rule as is, but I'm asking what is the rationale that the existing rule is better. When a ball should be "in play" is arbitrary any time it has to be dropped or teed up. If a ball goes into the water, its out. So you have to drop. You have to follow the rules for dropping, so you can't cheat in how you drop it.  Why should the tee box be different? If natural forces blows a ball off a tee, why is that different than natural forces moving a ball after it was dropped? 

When changing a Rule, I believe its important to make sure that the new Rule is an improvement on the existing Rule.  So I see no reason to "prove" that the existing Rule is better, those advocating for change need to show that their improvement is better.

As you mention, a ball is in play only after a stroke has been made from the Teeing Area.  That stroke is a clear point in time.  What would be an improvement to that?  The point in time where its set on a tee?  What if there's no tee used?  The point in time where its set in position to play?  Better, but that eliminates the player's opportunity to change his mind.  I think the start of a hole is fine the way it is, any change wouldn't really be an improvement.

The general rule, in fact the definition of "in play", is that a ball is in play from the time it is put in play on a hole until it is holed, or play on the hole is complete (match play, stableford, etc.)  Exceptions to that are made, certainly, but I believe they should be as limited as reasonably possible.  To expand the time when the ball is in its position on the course, but not in play, should be done only rarely.  As the Rules are now, if the ball is on the course, in a position from which you are going to play it, it is in play.  That's pretty consistent, any change would complicate matters.

9 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

@DaveP043  whats the normally accepted timeframe involved for 14.2.b(2) when it says the ball must be replaced and let go so that it stays in that spot?  Is it a 2 or 3 second thing after you let go watching for movement or some longer period of time or not defined at all?  Generally you see the official and player watch the ball closely for movement (sometimes resetting it a few times) & agree the ball is back in play and the player picks up the tees marking the drop area but I never heard anyone mention they had to do it in a certain amount of time. 

If there is not time frame defined, with the rule as it stands now I'd set the ball and not agree that it is in play while i looked everything over (like Ricky was checking out his shot) then go back to the ball ready to hit it and say it's in play and pick up the tees.  

Also, if I was a tour player I'd pay extra commission % points for a caddie that was a rules guru.  

There is no time defined by the Rules.  As you say, generally an official (if present) will agree with the player that a ball is "in play" before they move away.  If an official is present, and he determines that the ball is at rest, I'm not sure that the player has any right to disagree.  The player might show the official that the ball is still moving, if he can, but the official's decision is generally final.  20.2a says, in part: "A referee’s ruling on the facts or how the Rules apply must be followed by the player."  I think a similar course of action, available under the rules, is to define the point at which the ball must be placed, then do ALL of the walking around and evaluating necessary, but only place the ball when ready to quickly make the stroke.

[DaveP043]

20 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't a player who places their ball leave the tee marker in play check the shot out and do all of that and if the ball moves just end up replacing it as it was before? Could this be the work around? Kinda like in Chess where if you put you hand on a piece you should move it and it is frowned upon to remove your hand and touch another piece to move? Basically the tee being lifted out of the ground is the player acceptance of the ball now officially being in play and applied to the rules as is? Or am I way off base? I'm not a rules guy and play by them, but do not going into the weeds of all in the ins and outs of all of them.

As the Rules read right now, the ball is "in play" once it has been placed/replaced, even if the marker has not been removed.  And as I mentioned earlier, if a Referee is involved, the Referee's determination that the ball is at rest and in play stands, whether the player agrees or not.  Usually they'll work together, but at the end of the day the Rules give the final say to the Rules Official.  However, the player could mark the place where the ball is to be placed, then do all of his explorations and evaluations, and only place the ball once he's ready to play.  Shortening the time frame would certainly decrease the risk of the ball moving.

And as far as not being a "rules guy", none of us start out that way.  Some of us become interested in the details of the rules and eventually study them in detail.  I'm certainly on that path, and discussions of this type are great for me to continue learning.  If I'm going to come to a position and be able to defend it, I need to research and understand the way the Rules work in a specific circumstance

[fixyurdivot]

On 2/14/2022 at 9:29 AM, Shapotomous said:

I wonder how many of the 'no' votes would change to yes if it happened to them in a money match and cost $$ !?   

If you saw the post round interview, Theegala mentions that he was concerned about his penalty ball on #17 moving and that he rushed the 3rd shot/chip. I just mentioned this is another thread, but in situations where a 2 club length, no closer option leaves the ball on a precarious slope, with a high likelihood of moving, what benefit is that to the game and player?  I'm not saying that was the case for him and that he couldn't (like Charley) have found another place that eliminates that issue, but if not, the rule really should be changed.  

 

[silver & black]

Golf has enough rules to make one's head spin. Can you imagine if football (NFL) had over 200 pages of rules? The refs screw things up bad enough now. 

Can anyone shed some light on how there came to be so many rules, and why so many are needed?

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, silver & black said:

Golf has enough rules to make one's head spin. Can you imagine if football (NFL) had over 200 pages of rules? The refs screw things up bad enough now. 

Can anyone shed some light on how there came to be so many rules, and why so many are needed?

NFL rulebook seems to be pretty long:  https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2021-nfl-rulebook/

 

 

[silver & black]

11 hours ago, cnosil said:

NFL rulebook seems to be pretty long:  https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2021-nfl-rulebook/

 

 

Not as long as golf.

A lot of those rules are about playing field layout/markings, bench area, player conduct, etc... not about actually playing the game.

I'm not against the rules of golf, just wondering how/why there came to be so many rules that even the guys/gals that play professionally don't know/understand them all... let alone us amateur players.

 

[DaveP043]

16 hours ago, silver & black said:

Can anyone shed some light on how there came to be so many rules, and why so many are needed?

First, a couple of references if you're interested in learning.  You can review the evolution of Rules at www.http://www.ruleshistory.com/.  You can see summaries around individual topics, or you can read entire editions of the R&A Rules by time period.  When you look at a specific edition of the Rules, at the very top there's a brief summary of the changes from the previous edition.   A small book that kind of ties the Rules together is Principles Behind the Rules of Golf by Richard Tufts, available here: https://www.usgapublications.com/collections/rules-of-golf-2019/products/principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-paperback-2016-edition?variant=25702107654

The earliest rules regulated Match Play on a single golf course, each course had its own version of the Rules.  There were some commonalities, but also some rules specific to that individual course (see Scholar's Holes and Soldiers Lines in the 1744 Rules for Leith).  As the rules were unified, they needed to handle all of the idiosyncrasies of each golf course.  Then golf expanded geographically, from sandy seaside areas inland, to the Americas, Europe, Africa.  Each different region had different geologies, different plants, different animal threats, so additional Rules were needed to deal with them all.  Unlike football, which is played on a relatively uniform field about 1.5 acres in size, golf is played on widely varying courses covering 100 acres or so, with slopes, bunkers, lakes, rivers, deserts, all of which needed to be handled within the rules. 

The game changed, originally the Rules dealt only with match play (look at Rule 1 in the 1902 Rules) .  The "loss of hole" penalties in match play just won't work, so the gradual introduction of Stroke Play required additional rules.  The idea of "protecting your own interests" in match play doesn't work when you have many groups playing, so the rules had to address that.  Technology developed, bringing with it paved roads, underground irrigation, bringing new Rules because interference from these new things on the course wasn't thought to be "fair."  Mowers got better, a major change to conditions, requiring changes to rules.  Consider, prior to 1960 you couldn't repair greens, you couldn't mark, lift, and clean your ball on the green.  The changes to allow and regulate that became appropriate because the greens were becoming smoother and faster, as well as softer and wetter due to better irrigation.

That's enough for now, the evolution of the Rules of Golf is a subject that goes way beyond the scope of this thread.  There are lots of resources available, but those first two can be a reasonable start.  You might also look at http://ruleshistory.usga.org/

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by DaveP043