[Bill_McBride]

Hey I've got one for you while we are on this topic.  This happened to me just last summer.

We were playing a course where they had some problems with gophers digging holes in the ground.  So I hit my tee shot off to the left and it went under some trees that had some of these gopher holes.

The rub is, the holes appeared to have been filled in previously with dirt, but after watering and a few storms, the dirt settled so that the hole was now only "half full" so to speak.  My buddy said I have to take an unplayable lie because it is no longer a hole made by a burrowing animal because the grounds crew filled it in.  My claim was that it was still "techincally" a hole made by a burrowing animal and its not my fault the grounds crew did a shoddy job filling it in.  Hence I should get relief without penalty.  His counter claim was that even given that, it was not a hole made by a burrowing animal but rather a hole made by the rain and settling dirt.

So we never came to a consensus on this one.  Any thoughts from you Tom or anyone else?

Justifiable homicide.

[Chris Cupit]

Hey I've got one for you while we are on this topic.  This happened to me just last summer.

We were playing a course where they had some problems with gophers digging holes in the ground.  So I hit my tee shot off to the left and it went under some trees and into one of these holes.

The rub is, the holes appeared to have been filled in previously with dirt, but after watering and a few storms, the dirt settled so that the hole was now only "half full" so to speak.  My buddy said I have to take an unplayable lie because it is no longer a hole made by a burrowing animal because the grounds crew filled it in.  My claim was that it was still "techincally" a hole made by a burrowing animal and its not my fault the grounds crew did a shoddy job filling it in.  Hence I should get relief without penalty.  His counter claim was that even given that, it was not a hole made by a burrowing animal but rather a hole made by the rain and settling dirt.

So we never came to a consensus on this one.  Any thoughts from you Tom or anyone else?

I agree with Bill, kill him and then take relief.

Actually, you mentioned that the holes seemed to be under some trees.  Remember that rule 25 is not a get out of jail free card.  There is an exception under rule 25 that says, "A player may not take relief under this rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an abnormal ground condition or (b) interference by the a.g.c. would only occur through an unusually abnormal stance, swing or direction of play".

Assuming the exception did not apply and assuming that the holes were gopher holes not properly filled in, I think 99 times out of 100 the committee would grant relief.  

[Kalen Braley]

Well that was the other half of it.

Once I took my relief I still had tree trouble and was only able to punch it out back to the fairway.  So it wasn't like I was going to make it to the green anyhow.

I guess he was just tired of losing to me everytime so he wanted to stick it to me  

But it is an interesting question though, when is a hole made by a burrowing animal no longer a hole?  Does it have to be sodded over or just filled in?

[Andy Levett]

Mark,

I agree. It has to be good for architecture. Look at the 18th at Cruden Bay – one of Simpson’s favourites. All the trouble and bad angles are right – except the OB – but because the OB is (now)  such a three-off–the-tee car wrecker no-one will play the hole properly and everyone wonders why Simpson was so fond of it.
If you change (or revert) the rule for OB you could do the same for lost ball – great for pace of play, liberating for architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy - the problem remains you simply can't make it stroke only for lost ball - it gets way too vague as to where to drop.  See previous posts.... Distance only could be done, but that brings up the "penalty should fit the crime" issues also already discussed....

As for that burrowing animal hole question, PAGING JOHN V.!  Save us!

 

[JohnV]

BUT... as I say, the idea to make OB or lost ball distance only is intriguing and would work in general.  

Tom, in order to make OB and lost ball distance only, you also have to make unplayable and the worst option of a water hazard distance only.

When they tried this before, a player on a par 3 in a major plugged his ball under the lip of a bunker.  He declared the ball to be unplayable, went back to the tee and hit it to 6 inches and made par.  The USGA/R&A rules folks felt that the penalty was not severe enough, especially since his other options under the unplayable rule would have meant he had to drop in the bunker for a stroke and would have had less of a chance of making 3, so they went back to stroke and distance for all of the above penalties.

As for the burrowing animal hole, Chris, who is also on the US Mid-Amateur Committee, got it right in my opinon.  It could even be argued that the partially filled hole was a hole made by a groundskeeper and therefore was GUR for that reason.

Andy, Cruden Bay was built in 1926.  The rule was stroke and distance then, although it could be modified by local rule.  Therefore I'd assume that Simpson knew what the penalty would be unless the OB was added at some point after the course was built.

[JohnV]

Regarding those who don't hit a provisional or go back to where they last hit.  I have no problem with that as long as it was not in a stroke play tournament.

In match play, you can conceed the hole and do whatever you want.

In everyday play on a crowded muni, you can also just drop a ball and do what you want.  The USGA Handicap Rules even are ok with that as they say that you should give yourself the score you would most likely have made had you gone back.

But, if you're going to do that and be somewhat realistic, add 2, not 1.  Also, don't go telling someone you shot the best score of your life that day.  Just like course records, best scores of your life should only count if you played by the rules all the way.

[mike_beene]

Could you mark a lateral hazard just inside the out of bounds line,eliminate the ob and declare all land across the line a hazard,even if course doesn't own it.Those playing out of front yards couldn't ground their clubs,but they would not be immune from criminal prosecution.

[Chris Cupit]

Could you mark a lateral hazard just inside the out of bounds line,eliminate the ob and declare all land across the line a hazard,even if course doesn't own it.Those playing out of front yards couldn't ground their clubs,but they would not be immune from criminal prosecution.

Mike, you COULD do that but it wouldn't be right.  A water hazard is defined as, "...any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water)and anything of a similar nature on the course."

The biggest issue for one trying to define an area outside the course as a  water hazard is that by definition a water hazard exists only ON THE COURSE.  While their is some flexibility as to how you mark/define a course, e.g. you can define an area that "qualifies" as a  lateral water hazard a (regular) water hazrd, I don't think you could take an area clearly off the golf course and pretend it's a water hazard of any type.  Also, even if a portion of the area was on the course, while water doesn't have to be in the water hazard, I think it's stretching things to mark as a hazard areas that never carry water save for a flood.

If you did this, particularly since this "water hazard" has no water and you could have players playing playable balls from all over, you have then created a situation where you have gone from the most severe penalty in golf to almost no penalty at all.

 

[JohnV]

There is no such thing as a "lateral hazard".  There are only "lateral WATER hazards".  As Chris said, the area must meet the definition of a water hazard before it can be marked as such (contrary to what a lot of courses in Arizona think).  

If an area does meet the definition of a water hazard, it can extend to "infinity" as the Pacific Ocean does on #18 at Pebble Beach.  This is sometimes done with much smaller bodies of water than that such as creek on the edge of the course. If it would be difficult to tell if the ball ended up in the hazard or in the trees or grass beyond it causing disagreements about reasonable evidence or it might be difficult to mark the opposite margin because of access.  The other choice would be to start the OB at on the golf course side of the water, but most officials would rather not do that.

[Cassandra Burns]

When I play with high handicappers, I suggest and encourage the Muldooney Revisions:

1. Improve Your Lie
2. Inside the Leather is Good
3. Double Bogey is Max
4. OB is just a Hazard
5. Any Found Ball is Yours
6. All Equipment is Conforming
7. One Mulligan per Round

Yes, I know it's heresy to suggest such blatant disregard for the ancient hallowed Rules.  So I'm a heretic!  But I think that for beginners, the untalented or unskilled, and those who are just out for a good time and who play only occasionally - a lot of golfers, I think - the Muldooney Revisions make sense, they speed up play, and they make the game more fun.  I'm not going to begrudge someone who has a hard enough time just making a single par in a round.  This game is just so difficult, why make it an exercise in self-flagellation?  If anything, I think it makes the game more fun and playable, and that's what encourages people to come back to the course.

The number one reason people stick with the game, I think, is the joy of hitting a shot flush.  Improving Your Lie greatly facilitates this process.  It makes the game more addictive in the early stages.  Likewise, One Mulligan Per Round is like removing that one horrible, embarrasing shot that might keep someone from really taking to the sport.  And for the high handicapper, we shouldn't even bother with what Equipment they're putting in their bag.

Inside The Leather is Good should eliminate a half-hour per round for foursomes that would otherwise have been spent that time lining up (and missing) gimme putts.  Removing the distance penalty for OB and Lost balls should also speed up play - after all, if you're only talking about a one-stroke penalty instead of two, it's easier (and hence quicker) to give up the search and just take a drop.  Plus, less pressure and punishment makes the game more fun.  Double-Bogey is Max can be invoked to encourage the very poor player to just pick up or keep pace with the rest of the group.

http://www.muldooneyrevisions.com/

[Tom Huckaby]

John V - thanks!  Note that when I said distance only for OB would "work", all I meant is that you could do it and not have the vagueness that would necessarily happen if it was stroke only.  The other changes you suggest would be mandatory as well.   In the end I'm not sure all of that makes for an improvement to the game... but it is intriguing anyway.

Cassandra - Mr. Mulrooney just outlined how the vast majority of people play the game on crowded public courses.

TH

[Chris Cupit]

Cassandra,

I will join in on the heresy as well.  Why I personally like to play the ball down, by the rules...while I do serve as a rules official for a decent number of events and go to "rules school" every year, I think the rules are way too complicated and that even the golfer who wants to play by (most) of the rules can't.

Most golfers I know hit two (or more) off the first tee, improve their lies, never take stroke and distance penalties for lost balls/OB or come very close to dropping properly for water hazards or abnormal ground condition relief.

I am almost to the point of favoring bifurcation of the rules and equipment for the game.  I know some feel that playing the same equipment and by the same rules is what keeps all of us playing the same game--BS!!

99.99% of golfers come NOWHERE close to the game played by touring professionals.  Technology and equipment has allowed the very elite players to almost completely separate themselves from the avergae golfers game.  50 years ago, an avid golfer could hit his woods and irons a simlar distance to Hogan or others and what differentiated Hogan (and other pros) was their precision and consistency not the power (and yes, Hogan wrote about "Power Golf") but it's nothing like today.  

I don't think 2 rules or equipment standards would hurt the game--here's an example.

I would bet that the biggest fan of major league baseball is the slightly overweight weekend warrior that plays softball on a rec team on the weekends.  He plays slow pitch softball--10 defenders (one extra outfielder usually), there is a pitch limit, no stealing, no bunting--in short a different set of rules and equipment from the big leagues--does this diminish his love of the game or appreciation of it?  No way.  He's having fun, his kids will no doubt be encouraged to play little league and dad takes them to as many MLB games as possible.

For 99% golf needs to be more fun, faster and less expensive--it can't be that if you play by every rule, try and keep up equipment wise with the pros and insist on playing courses they play--7200 yards!

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris - isn't it simple enough to just trust that Bobby Jones was correct (there are two different types of golf - tournament and otherwise); and just leave it at that?  That is, strict rules adherence for competitive play, do what you want outside of that.  Of course this gets into handicap legitimacy issues... but I'd leave that to the honor of the player... even though JV is right, the handicap rules even allow for this, as he described a few posts back.

I'd say equipment is a separate issue though - I'm not sure I want bifurcation - emulating the pros is a huge part about what makes this game fun for a whole lot of people.

Thus I'd say leave the rules as they are... they're fine... just don't sweat how they are applied.

TH

[Scott Szabo]

Huck,

I agree with most of what you say, but if you have different sets of golfers playing by different rules, doesn't that make the current handicap system obsolete?  

Not that everybody turns in all their scores accurately nowadays anyway.....

[Doug Ralston]

Cassandra;

I am one of those for whom your rules apply. We play by rules very simlar to what you suggest. Lost ball OB = drop where it went out. We use 'double par' as pick up time. We totally ignore what anyone else uses for equipment [you would not believe my playing partner's bag  ]. Mulligans are as common as your playing partner's encouragement to take one. And 'gimme' can be from 'leather' to 'putter'; depending again on partner generosity  .

Since we never compete, and play, as you say, mainly for the thrill of the occasional well struck shot, and the pure joy of being there, we are quite fast and lose with USGA. We DO have a blast though.

Doug

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck,

I agree with most of what you say, but if you have different sets of golfers playing by different rules, doesn't that make the current handicap system obsolete?  

Not that everybody turns in all their scores accurately nowadays anyway.....

Scott - I wouldn't say it would make it obsolete; hell the vast majority of these golfers who play with casual self-made rules don't HAVE handicaps anyway and don't play in tournaments.  Those who have handicaps and do play competitively know what to do, and do so...

All I'm saying is don't sweat the rules unless you are going to play competitively - that's the general policy.

I'd then add this:  even those who do play competitively, invoke the "what I would have gotten" rule that JV describes when appropriate, in times of crowds and when it makes sense.

I have to believe this is what's occurring in reality anyway.

TH

[Mike Benham]

I agree with most of what you say, but if you have different sets of golfers playing by different rules, doesn't that make the current handicap system obsolete?  

Not that everybody turns in all their scores accurately nowadays anyway.....

Players that bump their ball, take mulligans, don't drop properly, give themselves putts are likely making their handicaps lower.  The abusers of the handicap system make their handicaps higher then they should be.

My club doesn't require that scorecards be turned in, golf is an honorable game.

[Tom Huckaby]

And of course Mr. Benham is correct.  Players who abuse the rules and turn in lower scores than they truly ought to have are the ones to SEEK OUT in competition.

 

[John_Cullum]

5. Any Found Ball is Yours

http://www.muldooneyrevisions.com/

This is consistent with Sarge's first rule of playing municipal courses... Your first concern is to get to your ball before someone else does.

[Scott Szabo]

Players that bump their ball, take mulligans, don't drop properly, give themselves putts are likely making their handicaps lower.  The abusers of the handicap system make their handicaps higher then they should be.

My club doesn't require that scorecards be turned in, golf is an honorable game.

I am referring to the ones that turn in scores higher than what they actually shoot, or don't turn in scores at all, rendering the handicap system a moot point.

Anyone who does as you say are indeed prime targets for a match, as Huck pointed out.

[Tom Huckaby]

Scott - there's nothing the rules can do to prevent sandbagging, outside of the peer review which is already written into the handicap system.  If one is dishonorable enough to sandbag, he can always do so.

TH

[JohnV]

In 2002 when I was playing a lot of public golf in California, I would end up being paired with guys who had no idea on what the real rules of golf were.  When they found out that I was a rules official, they would immediately get worried that I would call penalties on them.  I always said that as long as we didn't have a bet, they could do anything they wanted.  I still feel that way.  If we have a bet, we are playing by the rules, although in match play I would ignore the less egregious violations.

I'm glad that the Muldooney revisions quoted by Cassandra didn't include improving your lie.  That is the one thing that bugs me especially when I see guys doing it on every shot.

Since about 2/3s of all golfers don't have handicaps and don't play in tournaments, it doesn't really matter what they do.

Tom, the rules of the handicapping system do provide a couple of other ways to deal with sandbaggers.  One is the T Score system where a player who scores better in tournaments can have his handicap index revised downwards.  This happens automatically as long as T scores are posted by the club.

The other is that the Committee in charge of a tournament or course can assign a player a handicap if they think his is too high.  There was a guy at a club I belonged to many years ago whose handicap on the board was 8, the committee in charge of our member-guest told him that he would be a 4 if he wanted to play.  He brought in another ringer, played as a 4 and still won.  The next year they told him he had to be a 0.  He  figured he couldn't win as a 0 so he didn't play and left the club shortly after, which upset nobody.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV - those are good reminders - those also are means to combat sandbagging, and I'm glad we have them.

And I like your way of handling all of this - that's what I've been long-windedly trying to get at - unless some competition is involved, then do whatever you like.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Cassandra,

I will join in on the heresy as well.  Why I personally like to play the ball down, by the rules...while I do serve as a rules official for a decent number of events and go to "rules school" every year, I think the rules are way too complicated and that even the golfer who wants to play by (most) of the rules can't.

Most golfers I know hit two (or more) off the first tee, improve their lies, never take stroke and distance penalties for lost balls/OB or come very close to dropping properly for water hazards or abnormal ground condition relief.

I am almost to the point of favoring bifurcation of the rules and equipment for the game.  I know some feel that playing the same equipment and by the same rules is what keeps all of us playing the same game--BS!!

99.99% of golfers come NOWHERE close to the game played by touring professionals.  Technology and equipment has allowed the very elite players to almost completely separate themselves from the avergae golfers game.  50 years ago, an avid golfer could hit his woods and irons a simlar distance to Hogan or others and what differentiated Hogan (and other pros) was their precision and consistency not the power (and yes, Hogan wrote about "Power Golf") but it's nothing like today.  

I don't think 2 rules or equipment standards would hurt the game--here's an example.

I would bet that the biggest fan of major league baseball is the slightly overweight weekend warrior that plays softball on a rec team on the weekends.  He plays slow pitch softball--10 defenders (one extra outfielder usually), there is a pitch limit, no stealing, no bunting--in short a different set of rules and equipment from the big leagues--does this diminish his love of the game or appreciation of it?  No way.  He's having fun, his kids will no doubt be encouraged to play little league and dad takes them to as many MLB games as possible.

For 99% golf needs to be more fun, faster and less expensive--it can't be that if you play by every rule, try and keep up equipment wise with the pros and insist on playing courses they play--7200 yards!

Very well said Chris, different set of rules for different levels of play.

I would use this same line of reasoning to advocate the use of a different golf ball for tournament play so as to not make many classic course obsolete.  Everyone else can still use thier juiced up pro Vs, but the the tour events can use a limited distance ball.

In softball this is done with different DOT colored balls depending on if they are playing on a field with short or long fences, and/or just to discourage the game from becoming a home-run fest!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()