[john_stiles]

Anthony,

That is a fairly bleak picture,  I agree.

Hope the OGA pushes forward, and USGA finds the gumption to support at the last minute.

It deserves as much effort and thought as the 'furrow bunker rake' and the 'varying heights of rough' ideas.  What's next if you don't try this, maybe 'fluffing the rough' between groups.

[TEPaul]

Sorry, switch all my references to App 1, Part C 1a and 1b to 1b and 1c.

[TEPaul]

John:

If a tournament committee for a competition of "expert" players decided to conduct their competition without including on their "Conditions of Competion" the one ball rule (App 1, Part C, 1c) that would be OK with the USGA.

Most all competitions today with experts players do include the One Ball Rule among the "Conditions of Competition."

However, again, if that "condition" was not included on the Conditions of Competition sheet the tournament would still be conforming to the Rules of Golf in the eyes of the USGA. The reason for that is probably just practicality at this time because if for some reason the tournament committee intended to use the one ball rule and neglected to included it in the "Conditions of Competition" (sheet) the Rules of Golf provide that that "condition" cannot be enforced by the committee once the tournament has begun. If that were to occur the R&A and USGA does not really hae a desire to consider the entire tournament non-conforming to the Rules of Golf.

The List of Conforming Golf Balls (1b) is a bit more complex in the eyes of the USGA right now. The reason for that is that a round played with a ball that is not on the "List of Conforming Golf Balls" is a round whose score cannot be posted for handicap purposes. Section 5-1f of the USGA's "Handicap Manual" makes this clear.

Matter of fact, perhaps one of the primary reasons these distance measuring devices have become acceptable through a "Condition of Competition" since January 1, 2006 is that inadvertently the USGA allowed their use for posting scores in their handicap manual while the use of distance measuring devices was still prohibited in the Rules of Golf. This was obviously inadvertent and apparently the R&A gave them a hard time for such an oversight and inconsistency but the fact of it probably produced the new "condition" allowing DMDs in competition. Distance Measuring Devices are not permitted unless that particular "Condition" is in effect on the "Conditions of Competition" sheet.

Anthony is technically wrong when he refers to "legal precedents" in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. First of all, the R&A/USGA "Rules of Golf" is not a legal code at all---it is simply "Code of Golf Rules" that golfers can follow for their own convenience which basically permits a certain unanimity of understanding. The R&A or USGA has no ability at all (and does not want to have any) to prosecute anyone in any way for violating their Rules of Golf. The Rules provide in the playing of the game penalties for as little as one shot to disqualifiction for violating the Rules but that's the extent of it.

However, the relationship between the R&A's and USGA's Rules of Golf Committees (which essentially administer, interpret, monitor and write the "Rules of Golf" worldwide) and the concept within the Rules of the "committee" is something that continues to evolve and this situation with the OGA just may make that relationship evolve further and become more clarified as to what the "committee's" autonomy really is from the R&A and USGA to include their own "conditions" in a competition and still play in conformanance with the Rules of Golf.

Again, the R&A and USGA have no ability to prosecute someone, a committee, an association etc----the only recourse they ever use if they deem that a "competition" is being conducted not in conformance with the "Rules of Golf" is to simply state that they will have nothing to say if a question regarding the "Rules" is put to them regarding that competition.

[TEPaul]

John and Anthony;

It seems from some of these threads that few understand or appreciate how the Rules of Golf really work in some instances and less so how they have evolved over time and will continue to evolve in the future.

To a large degree changes in the Rules of Golf enter the Rules of Golf through the Appendix to the Rules of Golf. Appendix 1 includes "local" rules (generally for "abnormal conditions"), "Specimen" and "Special" Rules and "Conditions of Competition".

Generally, if some of these local, specimen special rules or conditions of competition become prevalent and used enough they will enter into the actual Rules of Golf (#1-#34).

The concept of the "Embedded Ball" is such an evolution. An embedded ball has now entered the actual "Rules" with it's inclusion as Rule 25-2 (in closely mown area) but it still remains as a "Local Rule" when embedded "Through the Green" (not in closely mown area).

This is one of the ways the Rules of Golf change and evolve---eg certain ideas, concepts and procedures come through the vehicle of the Appendix with its Local Rules (Part A), Specimen Local Rules (Part B) and Conditions of Competition (Part C).
One day soon the Embedded Ball will probably be within the actual Rules for all balls "Through the Green".

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Would you cite where the USGA has said that C, 1 b. prevents the OGA from implementing a competition ball stipulation ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your post #104 read my post #92.

Now for the most important question on this App 1, Part C, 1b or 1c thing, would you kindly tell me and us on here if the OGA or one of its representatives actually TOLD YOU that the OGA plans to use that "Condition of Competition" (1b or 1c) on the Conditions of Competition sheet to justify requiring a single specified golf ball or if you thought that one up all by yourself? And don't try to fudge it because I know those fellows from OGA and I have all their tel #s.  

As I said on some of the previous posts on this thread I would seriously doubt any competent Rules official or State Association official would be so foolish as to try to use those "Conditions" to justify a requirement to use a single specified ball in a tournament.

Any competent Rules official knows that 1b or 1c simply does not intend of accomodate such a thing despite your interpretation of the wording ""A" brand' in (1b). Any competent Rules Official knows the List of Conforming Ball Condition (1b) gives any competitor the choice of using any golf ball on the list of conforming balls---no more and no less.

It's as simple as that Pat, whether you see it or not.  

[TEPaul]

Come on Patrick answer the question I've been asking you for a week and quit being such a fudgy, weasely little Whiffensnoozer. If you want to know what a Whiffensnoozer looks like turn to page 13 in the Tillie book "The Course Beautiful".

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you have their telephone numbers, call them and get a clarification from the horse's mouth.

I related what I was told at dinner.

I didn't submit interogatories between the main course and dessert.

[john_stiles]

Tom,

I have noticed that 'creep' from App I to #1-34 especially regarding various conditions;  and would not be surprised if 'stones in bunkers' takes the same step.

And, yes, I realize the USGA has no legal recourse to any and all violations, and all the other parties do to practically any USGA action.

But,  if you plan to have a competition and purposefully leave out the one ball rule,  will the USGA assist with rules ?   If the answer is 'yes',   they should do the 'rules' if OGA requests assistance.

I think a last minute decision to support the OGA would promote 'fair and pleasant play' as they say.

Your logic is step by step understandable, and in their position, I might do the same.

Still the USGA seems practical almost all the time (please no laughter as my sound card is ka-put, video of coffee out the nostrils will be accepted) but why they cannot support this OGA event, with rules officials, at the last minute is beyond me.

We get all these steps and actions to combat length all these years, and no token gesture to get some relief from constant and expensive course work.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
If you have their telephone numbers, call them and get a clarification from the horse's mouth.”

Patrick:

I can certainly do that but that’s not what I’m asking you. You said in post #55;

“Apparently, I"m not the only one who feels that the language allows the committee to require A BRAND OF GOLF BALL for the competition.  I believe the OGA and attorneys have looked at the language and found it sufficient to allow for the play of a required competition ball.”

In my opinion, it's you who made that statement on here and therefore it's you who is the horse's mouth regarding the question I'm asking you. I’m simply asking you if the OGA or some representative from the OGA TOLD YOU THAT. All you need to do is answer the question yes or no.

If I want to find out if the OGA is actually thinking of using that “condition” to justify this requirement, then yes, all I need to do is call them and ask them. They may not even plan on using a “condition" in the  “Conditions of Competition” to require the use of a specified golf ball because they apparently realized that they need not precipitate a Rules dispute with the USGA and they decided to run this tournament as an invitational with the requirement that they’ll use a single specified golf ball printed right on the invitation sent to the players.

But I’m not asking you what they will or won’t use, I’m asking you if the OGA or some representative from the OGA actually TOLD YOU they were thinking of using App 1, Part C, 1b or 1c to justify requiring the players to use a single specified golf ball or whether you thought that one up yourself?

[TEPaul]

"“But, if you plan to have a competition and purposefully leave out the one ball rule, will the USGA assist with rules ?  If the answer is 'yes',  they should do the 'rules' if OGA requests assistance.
I think a last minute decision to support the OGA would promote 'fair and pleasant play' as they say.
Your logic is step by step understandable, and in their position, I might do the same.
Still the USGA seems practical almost all the time (please no laughter as my sound card is ka-put, video of coffee out the nostrils will be accepted) but why they cannot support this OGA event, with rules officials, at the last minute is beyond me.”


John:

Yes of course the USGA with assist with the Rules or a Rules question if a tournament's committee decided not to use the one ball condition. They would assist with the Rules or answer Rules questions if a tournament committee decided not to use the "List of Conforming Ball" condition too.

Those are simply "conditions" of competition the USGA provides that a committee can use or decide not to use.

But the USGA and most all tournament committees understand what those two conditions of competiton are meant for and they understand neither is meant to ALLOW a tournament committee to REQUIRE that competitors use a SINGLE SPECIFIED golf ball. It's as simple as that.

If all competitors showed up and happened to use the very same ball and stuck with it in the stipulated round the USGA would have no problem with that either and would assist in Rules questions. But that is not what is potentially happening here. Potentially the OGA or some committee like it will attempt to REQUIRE all competitors to use a ball of their designation whether it be one of the committee's choice or a number that have limited distance specs on them.

Essentially this is violating the player's CHOICE of using any ball he wants to on the USGA List of Conforming Golf Balls which is provided for in App 1, Part C, 1b. That is the ONLY restriction on the player that particular "Condition of Competition" contemplates or intends under the Rules despite how Pat Mucci wants to interpret it.

That is what the OGA is attempting to do----eg restrict the player's CHOICE of playing any ball on the List of Conforming Golf Balls and it has never been done before and the Rules of Golf or its "Conditions of Competition" simply do not provide for such a thing.

I hope you can see the distinction here in their minds between assisting on Rules with a committee that merely decides not to use a Condition of Competition that is supplied for their choice in the Appendix and doing something like this that has never been done before or contemplated in the Rules.

In my opinion, it would not matter to the USGA if the OGA required players to use a single specified golf ball or one of many golf balls that have purposely reduced distance specs. The USGA is apparently not for either "condition" and they are certainly not now for the concept of a "competition" golf ball.

The USGA is simply not condoning of such a "competition" golf ball (reduced distance specs) because they view such a thing as a departure from their intention to maintain one set of standards for balls and implements for all golfers regardless of expertise.

Of course the R&A and USGA can interpret their own Rules of Golf any way they want to but for the reasons I've given I don't think they want to interpret them the way Pat Mucci thinks they should.

I believe, as I've said before, that what this OGA situation will probably precipitate is a much more defined set of decisions or Rules wording that makes it far more clear what autonomy any "committee" has under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf to make or use their own "Conditions of Competition" or what autonomy they have to interpret those "conditions" without input from the USGA Rules of Golf Committee.

This type of action from a "committee" has just not happened before and so the Rules of Golf don't really contemplate it.

But I can guarantee you that it won't be long now before they WILL contemplate it. Because of wording in their Joint Statement of Principles I don't see them condoning a "Condition of Competition" that allows a "committee" to require that all competitors use a single specified ball or a so-called "competition" ball.

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci is a fudging, weasely little Wiffensnoozer because he absolutely refuses to answer a very simple question. And why does he refuse? Because if he answers it honestly it will prove him to be a fudging weasely little Wiffensoozer.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()