[Ran Morrissett]

Once upon a time, the Rules of Golf read that basically you tee it up and you don't touch the ball until after you hole out.

Sometime (I think) in between the two world wars, along with the end of the stymie  , the rule was changed to allow the golfer to mark his ball once it was on the putting surface and clean it.

If we brought the rule back where you can't touch the ball, would we see a return to firmer playing conditions (i.e. members would get frustrated at the continual sight of mud on their ball and therefore seek dryer, firmer conditions)?

Did this rule have the unintentional side benefit of promoting firm and fast conditions?

I ask this question after having played last night at Southern Pines and ending up with big blotches of mud on my ball on more than one occasion. I am probably stuck with that happening a lot unless there is a change in attitude and I wonder if bringing this rule back could help.

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

This is a VERY good idea which insures that it will probably never even be considered by the USGA or R&A. Why, oh why, should we be allowed to lift and clean the ball on the edge of the green and not the ball just on the fringe?  Hard to argue that one!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

It's probably a good idea, unfortunately, I don't think spoiled memberships would go along with it.

I think a major drought would be the prime reason golfers would return to golf with little or no water, perhaps they might even prefer it after a while.

[Ed_Baker]

Pat,

If it were a USGA rule "spoiled memberships" wouldn't have a choice,right? Unless they invoked local rules.

I think it's a great idea,I'd love to see the water turned off.

[Kevin_Reilly]

When I read the first sentence of Ran's post I thought we were re-visiting Dan King's rules of golf thread!

I bet if the no-lifting rule were in place, we'd no doubt have local rules in place whenever there were muddy conditions on the greens.

It is fun to occasionally watch the pros on shows like Challenge Golf and All Star Golf leave their balls unmarked on the greens.

The primary benefit would be faster play.

[Mike O'Neill]

why do we get relief from casual water?

[Mike O'Neill]

why do we get relief from casual water?

[TEPaul]

Ran:

I'm absolutely shocked!!!! You mentioned this and Pat even read it and for some unknown reason did not pick up on its true significance!!!!

You see the USGA doesn't need to institute such a rule because they already have one. What they would need to do to institute what you're suggesting is to eliminate each and every exception to that rule which they now have in place.

But I will tell you this with certainty (and to prove that Pat was asleep at the switch!!!!), that if they did eliminate all the exceptions what they would in effect be doing is eliminating the elimination of the STYMIE!!!! You see it was the stymie itself that prevented a golfer from ever touching his ball or I guess I should more accurately say that the fact that a golfer could not touch his ball is the sole reason why the stymie was in effect in golf and likely lasted as long as it did!!!

Interesting idea on your part to keep thing firm and fast but there are probably a ton better and more effective ways of going about it than to intsitute this rule (by removing the present exceptions).

But, My God, if for some reason this were done the stymie would be back, golfers would learn how to creatively chip again, it could be the end of bluegrass rough surrounding greens, courses would be firm and fast again and in effect all would be right with the world due to the return of the stymie!!!!

Way to go Ran, and as Butch said to Sundance; "Just keep thinking--that's what you're good at!"

[John Morrissett]

I believe current Rule 16-1b (the authority to lift your ball from the putting green for any reason) appeared in, I believe, 1960, partly for the reasons Ran suggests -- unreasonably dirty (golf) balls.  (The stymie was eliminated in 1952.  However, remember that the stymie applied to match play only; in stroke play a player could require his fellow-competitor to lift his ball if it interfered, making sure not to clean it, of course (current Rule 22).)

In the 1960s, the USGA experimented with limiting the number of times a player may lift as well as clean his ball from the putting green.  With the so-called "continuous putting Rule," in stroke play a player was allowed to lift and clean his ball from the putting green only once (and that he had to keep putting until he hole out).  This was in effect in even a few U.S. Opens, with the intention of speeding up play.  Unfortunately, after several years that was not found to be the result, so the trial Rule was abandoned.

One negative of Ran's proposal is that Committees would be more likely not to resume play as quickly after heavy rains as they would be reluctant to force players to putt with huge globs of mud on the ball.  Also, remember that the Rules apply to all parts of the world -- such a Rule would be rather severe in parts of Asia, etc. during the rainy season.

[John Morrissett]

Mike--

Good question about casual water.

Originally, all water was treated the same --relief only with a penalty.

Somehwere along the line, the issue of "fairness" was introduced to the game and its Rules (something that was probably needed in small doses when stroke play became popular).  The idea of swatting a long drive down the middle and winding up in six inches of casual water probably frustrated and annoyed quite a few players; if you are going to allow relief from rabbit scrapes, obstructions, etc., why not temporary accumulations of water?  The areas are somewhat related.

Today, if we did not allow for relief without penalty from casual water, it would take longer to resume play after a suspension of play as most Committees would want to make sure the areas in play were free of "small water hazards."  Plus, it does seem severe to penalize a player for hitting his ball into a temporary area that was never intended to a design feature of the course.

Note: To the non-golfer, is "casual water" the most bizarre term in the game??

[Gimpy]

Living near Southern Pines, I know many courses are switching over to rye grass for the winter which requires a fair amount of watering at this time. I would be interested to hear from a superintendent on the limitations aggressive watering places on course conditions throughout the year (obviously dependent on climate).  Keeping our bent greens alive in the southern summer also requires considerable amounts of water which further contributes to muddy collars and balls.    

[Peter Galea]

Isn't "casual water" also known as a 'chaser'?
Goes along side a "casual shot", usually found at the 19th hole.

[aclayman]

I have played 36 holes this week (an all time low) and never had to clean my ball once. The reseeding process has things all burnt out, but the bermuda grass sure doesn't seem to run when you play a bump.

[John Morrissett]

Another point to support Ran's conjecture: I believe 1960 was the first year you were allowed to repair a ball mark on the putting green on your line of play or line of putt.  That change, plus the lifting and cleaning, do point toward more water on the course in the late '50s.

[Ted_Sturges]

Ran,

Don't feel like you are "stuck" with soft conditions at the Elks Club.  Get involved!  They need you.

TS

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'Neill,

Could sprinkler systems be the culprit behind relief from casual water ?

Dry conditions, perfect drive to the center of the fairway, only to have the ball under water, created by a sprinkler line break.
A fault in the man made addition to the golf course.  Should one get relief from that situation, I think so.

TEPaul,

I wasn't feeling to well, and... you're right
I missed it.  

I'm so glad you've finally seen the light,
It must have been Gil Hanse's talk at AppleBrook that convinced you that almost everything bad or wrong in golf dates back to 1951 when the stymie was eliminated.  I know my chipping has suffered ever since.

Ran, John, Ed Baker,

Clubs would embrace the use of LOCAL rules to circumvent the USGA position.

The more I'm exposed to today's clubs, the more I feel that we are the JEDI KNIGHTS of our time and milieu.

[BarnyF]

I have only played with one man in my 33 yrs of golf that understood what casual water is according to the rules of golf.  If anybody has to ask the question "Is this casual water?" I can assure you they are not in it.  I would say taking relief from casual water not in the spirit of the rules is the number one rules infraction committed by golfers who respect the game.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Even though turning off the water would reduce the number of times you'd find a glob of mud on your ball, there's still the problem of sand on your ball after you've come onto the putting surface from a greenside bunker. Even reasonably dry sand will sometimes cling to the ball; I think I'd almost rather putt with mud on the ball than with sand on it. One grain in the right (or wrong) place can influence the quality of contact. My preference -- whether course watering were reduced or not -- would be to be allowed to quickly mark my ball, clean off the foreign particles and then proceed with getting it into the hole.

[ForkaB]

Rick

Don't you have exactly the same problem of mud, sand, etc. sticking to the ball "through the green?"  Shouldn't all shots be created equal?

[Rick Shefchik]

Rich

Due to the precision of a putt, as opposed to, say, a chip shot or a full approach, I don't think of all shots in golf as being equal.

In other words, mud or sand on my ball from 150 yards out or 30 yards out doesn't seem -- in my mind -- to have nearly the effect on the shot's outcome as it would on the green. The rules don't treat all shots as equal in other ways -- after all, once you've hit your tee shot, you don't tee your ball up again until starting the next hole. I don't see any contradiction in having different rules for the three different classifications of shots: tee shots, all subsequent approach shots, and putts.

[John Morrissett]

Pat--

I don't think irrigation systems were the force behind relief from casual water, as the first USGA code made limited provisions for such.  It probably had something to do with rain.  

One problem with a Local Rule is the confusion it would add to the game.  Plus, I bet most courses in this country would want to use the Local Rule, so what's the point?

Rich--

We already treat the putting green very differently than other parts of the course (e.g., allowing you to remove sand, imposing a penalty for striking the flagstick, making a stroke astride en extension of the line of putt, etc.), so I'm afraid there is precedent for drawing the line there.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Regarding John's last point, I'd never miss a 3-4 footer if they still allowed one to stand behind the ball while putting (The Sam Snead Rule).

[ForkaB]

Scott

Try the CLAW (Contradextral Lightfingered Assymetric Wiggleproof) grip.  You'll sink all the 3-4 footers, even with mud on your ball!

[TEPaul]

"Casual water" is one of the most bizarre terms in golf, unless, like me, you are throughly familiar with the fifth (5th) definition of the word casual.

[Slag_Bandoon]

  "Casual Water" is an unstaked water deluged area with depth over the tops of your shoes without a high voltage power line laying in it. . . sizzling and steaming.  

 I like your idea Ran, now, how do you change the mindset of the typical player who will do almost anything to score better using any rule he can use (or bend)?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()