USGA limiting green books. What about yardage books?

[jeffwarne]

Hopefully none of the players are looking at their phones at the "Hawk Eye" lines on TV during the PGA telecast


Love hearing the announcers defend the white line as the "lag line" as the ball curves the opposite direcetion of the line away from the hole.
Not one read has been correct that they've shown on TV
neither the blue(firm) or white(lag) lines have been close

[Kalen Braley]

I was thinking about the rules conundrum a bit over the weekend, specifically why golf has so many rules.  And I'm not sure how it can be avoided.


Most sports are played on uniform, bounded playing areas, where most of the rules are centered around actual play and don't have to consider stuff like holes made by burrowing animals.


Then throw in the massive variety of whats required to play:  The different equipment types, fans being on the field of play, caddies, variety of holes, greatly varied playing conditions, various course types, differing hazard types, match play vs stroke, etc, etc, etc....


I just don't know how they can get around at least minimally covering all of the potential scenarios that may arise during the playing of the golf.

[Michael Felton]

I was thinking about the rules conundrum a bit over the weekend, specifically why golf has so many rules.  And I'm not sure how it can be avoided.


Most sports are played on uniform, bounded playing areas, where most of the rules are centered around actual play and don't have to consider stuff like holes made by burrowing animals.


Then throw in the massive variety of whats required to play:  The different equipment types, fans being on the field of play, caddies, variety of holes, greatly varied playing conditions, various course types, differing hazard types, match play vs stroke, etc, etc, etc....


I just don't know how they can get around at least minimally covering all of the potential scenarios that may arise during the playing of the golf.

That's the thing. 99% of the rounds you play can be covered by a few simple rules. Probably 50+% can be covered by hit it, find it, hit it again. It's the bizarre situations that come up once in a blue moon that they have to cater for. One of my favourites is:


Player hits his tee shot in the woods. Hits a provisional. Finds his ball, hits it out, picks up his provisional. Finds out it wasn't his ball that he hit so he went back and hit another from the tee. How many has he played? The rules have to make sure that two different players who do the same thing come to the same conclusion. Not easy...

[A.G._Crockett]

I was thinking about the rules conundrum a bit over the weekend, specifically why golf has so many rules.  And I'm not sure how it can be avoided.


Most sports are played on uniform, bounded playing areas, where most of the rules are centered around actual play and don't have to consider stuff like holes made by burrowing animals.


Then throw in the massive variety of whats required to play:  The different equipment types, fans being on the field of play, caddies, variety of holes, greatly varied playing conditions, various course types, differing hazard types, match play vs stroke, etc, etc, etc....


I just don't know how they can get around at least minimally covering all of the potential scenarios that may arise during the playing of the golf.

Kalen,I agree with you 100% that the unique nature of the "playing field" in golf makes for a uniquely complex set of rules, and I don't think there is much way around that.  I am constantly amazed by the situations that come up that cause us to scratch our heads about what is the proper way to proceed. 

That said, there are two guiding principles for rule-making bodies in sports, generally speaking.  One is to try to treat like situations alike, and the other is to reduce, wherever possible, judgement calls.  In those two regards, I'm not sure that the USGA has necessarily been especially proficient over the years.  I think the upcoming changes in the Rules are a major step in that direction, but I really believe there is work yet to be done.
An example: A golfer hits a shot, and thinks the ball may be lost, and so plays a second ball.  Whether or not that second shot is deemed to be a provisional ball or is now the ball in play depends on WHERE the ball might be lost.  Going forward, the player finds that the ball is NOT lost; whether or not he can or must play the original ball depends on whether or not the second ball was or was not a provisional ball.
This is, of course, hopelessly complex, especially if one is playing a blind shot on an unfamiliar course.  The USGA is moving toward a solution by allowing players to drop and take a two-stroke penalty in casual play when a ball is unexpectedly, but under the guiding principle of treating like situations alike, how we deal with lost golf balls, which happens EVERY round is, well, nuts.
I play in a senior tournament series in which players of a hugely wide range of handicaps play unfamiliar courses every Monday.  You'll laugh at the heresy of this, but we play the entire golf course as if it is lined with red stakes.  If you lose a ball ANYWHERE at ANY time during the round, you drop at the nearest point, take a one stroke penalty, and play on.  The obvious reason is to keep 100+ golfers moving while guests at a course, but it turns out the benefits go far beyond that.
And you know what?  It makes little or no difference in the outcome each week.  It speeds play, it makes rules issues almost nonexistent, and the players that play the best win.
I could give other examples; you can move a red or yellow stake, but not a white one.  You can move a pine cone unless it's embedded.  You can fix a pitch mark on the green before you putt, but not in the fringe before you play your shot.  And on and on and on...

[David_Tepper]

"You can move a pine cone unless it's embedded."

Or in a bunker!

[Edward Glidewell]

I play in a senior tournament series in which players of a hugely wide range of handicaps play unfamiliar courses every Monday.  You'll laugh at the heresy of this, but we play the entire golf course as if it is lined with red stakes.  If you lose a ball ANYWHERE at ANY time during the round, you drop at the nearest point, take a one stroke penalty, and play on.

I'd guess that 90-95% of golfers, at least in the US, ALWAYS play this way. It's by far the most common thing I've seen when someone loses a ball, or even hits it OB -- I don't think I've ever seen someone go back to the tee to play another ball in a non-tournament round.


Also, do you play in the CGA Senior Four-Balls?

[Kalen Braley]

AG et. al.


Good comments and I agree in principle.  Most of the time a simple set of rules would do for most play.


I see this as one more data point in favor of bifurcation.  Playing with casual, common sense rules WILL work with weekend warriors, but can't imagine it would be "good enough" for top level competitive play where livelihoods are on the line and these guys are looking for every tiny little advantage to get ahead...

[Bruce Katona]

The blue blazers in Far Hills are looking to again re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; to get the next generation interested in the game and grow the game they need to speed up pace of play and reign in the length of the ball.


Frankly the PGA did a good job on entertainment value this weekend, but the script was well cast.  The carry distances the guys were hitting their woods and irons is just beyond belief, however.

[A.G._Crockett]

I play in a senior tournament series in which players of a hugely wide range of handicaps play unfamiliar courses every Monday.  You'll laugh at the heresy of this, but we play the entire golf course as if it is lined with red stakes.  If you lose a ball ANYWHERE at ANY time during the round, you drop at the nearest point, take a one stroke penalty, and play on.

I'd guess that 90-95% of golfers, at least in the US, ALWAYS play this way. It's by far the most common thing I've seen when someone loses a ball, or even hits it OB -- I don't think I've ever seen someone go back to the tee to play another ball in a non-tournament round.


Also, do you play in the CGA Senior Four-Balls?

I do play in CGA tournaments, both four-balls and individual.

[Jeff Schley]

The blue blazers in Far Hills are looking to again re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; to get the next generation interested in the game and grow the game they need to speed up pace of play and reign in the length of the ball.


Frankly the PGA did a good job on entertainment value this weekend, but the script was well cast.  The carry distances the guys were hitting their woods and irons is just beyond belief, however.

Yeah no kidding.  The 248 yard par 3 where Woods, Koepka, Scott all hit 4 iron and 2 of the 3 carried at least 240 or more.  That is my driver.  Forget about driver distances, which are obscene.

[Edward Glidewell]

I do play in CGA tournaments, both four-balls and individual.

I was just curious because what you were describing sounded like the CGA senior four-balls. My father plays in them.

[A.G._Crockett]

I do play in CGA tournaments, both four-balls and individual.

I was just curious because what you were describing sounded like the CGA senior four-balls. My father plays in them.

Not at all!  The CGA tournaments are essentially played strictly by the Rules.  The only exceptions I can think of in the three years I've been playing in them are lift, clean, and place in your own fairway in VERY wet conditions, and that's only happened a couple of times.  There have also been a couple of situations dealing with new sod or damaged turf, things you do NOT see on TV, but again, those have been very rare.  But you take full stroke and distance penalties for OB, play the ball down, and so forth.

The tournaments I was referring to are a local senior group in the Triangle area; lower level of golf, lesser courses, cheaper entry fees.  Different kind of golfers, different kind of tournament. 

[A.G._Crockett]

For any who doubt that the Rules are just a bit arcane, or that the USGA has it's head up it's collective butt, try this one:
https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/bhatia-loses-us-am-match-after-caddie-cart-incident/?cid=Email_ThursdayNL_20180816

[Matthew Petersen]

Speaking of the Am and yardage books, they ran this segment with Nicklaus talking about how he and Dean Beaman started packing off yardages and recording them back when everyone else was just eyballing it:


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/videos/2018/08/14/us-amateur-jack-nicklaus-yardage-book-golf-pebble-beach.html

[Mark Fedeli]

Near impossible to write an effective rule that avoids loopholes.  Difference between green books, yardage books, hand drawn notes?


They tried & failed to get rid of long putters.


It will likely go the other way, with electronic devices such as range finders becoming legal and with those getting more detailed information.


As long as one doesn't use a protractor

Dave,We might disagree on this, but there was NO effort made to get rid of long putters; only of anchoring.  To wit, the maximum allowable length for a golf club is 48", but this still does not apply to putters.  It would seem that the anchoring ban might have been accompanied by a new rule regulating putter length had the USGA wished to start down that road, but no such rule was made.

Speaking of long putters, the one thing I’ve noticed about them is how unwieldy they feel. I can’t imagine using one and not anchoring it. It’s very hard to believe that the current pros who are using them would find them easier to control than a short putter if they weren’t anchoring at least a little bit. Can someone with a little more experience on the subject chime in? Are there any good players out there who use a long putter and keep daylight between their top hand and chest?

[Kevin_Reilly]

For any who doubt that the Rules are just a bit arcane, or that the USGA has it's head up it's collective butt, try this one:
https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/bhatia-loses-us-am-match-after-caddie-cart-incident/?cid=Email_ThursdayNL_20180816

I told that story to my son, who only played in a handful of tournaments, and he said "everyone knows you can't get in a cart".  He and I caddied in the USGA Four Ball a few years ago and we knew that for us (as caddies) as well.

[A.G._Crockett]

For any who doubt that the Rules are just a bit arcane, or that the USGA has it's head up it's collective butt, try this one:
https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/bhatia-loses-us-am-match-after-caddie-cart-incident/?cid=Email_ThursdayNL_20180816

I told that story to my son, who only played in a handful of tournaments, and he said "everyone knows you can't get in a cart".  He and I caddied in the USGA Four Ball a few years ago and we knew that for us (as caddies) as well.

Kevin,I believe if you read the article, you'll see that there had been a pace of play ride given to another caddie earlier in the round; the rule says "unless authorized".  The problem here was that the volunteer was wearing a USGA pullover. 

Well, actually, the problem is that the rule of reason wasn't followed when caddie got a ride from the bathroom to the tee to keep pace of play.  But I digress...

[Kevin_Reilly]

Yes, I am aware that the caddie who broke the rule says he saw another caddie do the same thing earlier in the day.  I am not aware that anyone else saw the same thing.

[A.G._Crockett]

Near impossible to write an effective rule that avoids loopholes.  Difference between green books, yardage books, hand drawn notes?


They tried & failed to get rid of long putters.


It will likely go the other way, with electronic devices such as range finders becoming legal and with those getting more detailed information.


As long as one doesn't use a protractor

Dave,We might disagree on this, but there was NO effort made to get rid of long putters; only of anchoring.  To wit, the maximum allowable length for a golf club is 48", but this still does not apply to putters.  It would seem that the anchoring ban might have been accompanied by a new rule regulating putter length had the USGA wished to start down that road, but no such rule was made.

Speaking of long putters, the one thing I’ve noticed about them is how unwieldy they feel. I can’t imagine using one and not anchoring it. It’s very hard to believe that the current pros who are using them would find them easier to control than a short putter if they weren’t anchoring at least a little bit. Can someone with a little more experience on the subject chime in? Are there any good players out there who use a long putter and keep daylight between their top hand and chest?

Mark,As it happens, I putt face on/side saddle; have been for over three years now.  I use a 44" putter that is very heavy, at least in comparison to a conventional putter, but if a club that long isn't pretty heavy, it just doesn't work well.  In a sense, your point is correct; without SOMETHING being stabilized, a club that heavy would be present difficulties.

In side saddle putting, most players anchor the elbow of the top hand to their side; that hand acts only as a fulcrum.  None of this violates the anchoring ban, and I'm still kind of surprised that none of the long putter guys went to this when the anchoring ban came in.  It's a MUCH easier way to putt, and it would remove all of this doubt about whether or not their top hand is anchored.  And I've talked to a couple of the guys that make and sell putters for this; they were expecting some of those guys to just turn and face the hole.  Though I think Grant Waite may have started doing this?

[A.G._Crockett]

Yes, I am aware that the caddie who broke the rule says he saw another caddie do the same thing earlier in the day.  I am not aware that anyone else saw the same thing.

I haven't seen anything that contradicts Bhatia's caddy's story, but I suppose he could have fabricated seeing the other caddy riding.  But it would be a pretty ballsy story, given that it was the opposing caddy that he would be accusing.  Haven't seen any comments from the other player or caddy, or from the USGA since.

It's also not clear if the caddy was saying that the same guy gave both him and other caddy their rides, or if the other caddy actually did get a ride from a USGA official, which would constitute "prior authorization", I suppose.

[V. Kmetz]

In a USGA qualifier earlier this year, after we discovered a ball was out of bounds we did not know existed behind a green, a crusty old official gave me and the player a ride BACK to the fairway and when I questioned him before doing so, he said,


"We can give you a ride backwards, not forwards."


I do not know if this is an official policy or just something he said ad hoc, but in made sense in the spirit of the thing.


So perhaps this player saw something along these lines.


cheers   vk

[Mark Fedeli]

Speaking of long putters, the one thing I’ve noticed about them is how unwieldy they feel. I can’t imagine using one and not anchoring it. It’s very hard to believe that the current pros who are using them would find them easier to control than a short putter if they weren’t anchoring at least a little bit. Can someone with a little more experience on the subject chime in? Are there any good players out there who use a long putter and keep daylight between their top hand and chest?

Mark,As it happens, I putt face on/side saddle; have been for over three years now.  I use a 44" putter that is very heavy, at least in comparison to a conventional putter, but if a club that long isn't pretty heavy, it just doesn't work well.  In a sense, your point is correct; without SOMETHING being stabilized, a club that heavy would be present difficulties.

In side saddle putting, most players anchor the elbow of the top hand to their side; that hand acts only as a fulcrum.  None of this violates the anchoring ban, and I'm still kind of surprised that none of the long putter guys went to this when the anchoring ban came in.  It's a MUCH easier way to putt, and it would remove all of this doubt about whether or not their top hand is anchored.  And I've talked to a couple of the guys that make and sell putters for this; they were expecting some of those guys to just turn and face the hole.  Though I think Grant Waite may have started doing this?

Thanks, A.G. That makes a lot of sense. I haven't spent much time toying around with a long putter, but it seems like getting just one knuckle of that top hand against the chest would make a world of difference, stability-wise. And even a millimeter of space between the hand and chest would make it far more difficult to control.

[Pete_Pittock]

R&A, USGA have completed a 6-week input period and the final productcan be found at:


http://oga.org/usga-and-ra-finalize-limits-use-green-reading-materials

[Pete_Pittock]

[font=&amp][/font]

[font=&amp]Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:[/font]

[font=&amp][/size][/font]

[font=&amp] Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”). Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit. No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses. Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie. [/size][/font]

[font=&amp][/size][/font]

[font=&amp] The final interpretation also clearly defines that any use of electronic or digital putting-green maps must comply with the same limits. A player is still in breach of Rule 4.3 if the player uses any device not consistent with the purpose of the limits, including:[/font]

[font=&amp][/size][/font]

[font=&amp] Increasing the size of the green’s representation beyond the scale or size limits. Producing a recommended line of play based on the location (or estimated location) of the player’s ball (see Rule 4.3a(1)). [/size][/font]

[font=&amp][/size][/font]

[font=&amp] Some of the changes made to the original proposal following the feedback period include the removal of: (1) the proposed minimum slope indication limit of 4% and (2) the prohibition against using handwritten notes to create a copy or facsimile of a detailed green map. Additions to the original proposal include: (1) a new size limit for the printed book/material (restricted to pocket-size), (2) a new prohibition against magnification of putting green information and (3) a new requirement that that any hand-drawn or written information must be in a book or on a paper meeting the size limit and must be written by the player and/or his or her caddie.[/font]

[font=&amp][/font]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Not one read has been correct that they've shown on TV

Which is sad, because Mark Sweeney had this thing pegged almost a decade ago.