News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2016, 05:03:42 PM »
Chris,


I wasn't suggesting that you were.


What I am suggesting is that all these players are under the microscope every weekend, and the idea that a ball laying 3' from a hole needed marking wasn't an issue for Monty and Wes, the referee, the committee, and anyone else in the field.


Only Wadkins.   


Jim,

It's a combination of ignorance and concession to the path of least resistance.

The players are inclined to be ignorant of a rule like this but the officials have the responsibility to do more than they have.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2016, 05:10:08 PM »
Next ruling:

I was putting from an inch on the fringe yesterday. As I was getting into my address I had the putter on the ground a fraction of an inch behind the ball. While looking at the hole and getting my feet into position the ball rolled back against the face of my putter.

The guys in our group and the pro shop staff said the rule has changed and that it was my call whether or not I made it move.

What's the right call?

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2016, 06:24:45 PM »
I remember Phil in a playoff asking his opponent to go and mark his ball when Phil was about 100 yards from the green. Damn if he didn't almost hit the guy's marker.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2016, 06:46:36 PM »

Jim,

I think it's fairly simple - don't place the clubhead a fraction of an inch away. ;)   


If you check how much the grass might move by grounding your club nearby, or estimate the height of the cut and then stay at least that far away on the horizontal during address, you have a good argument that you did not cause the ball to move.


But if I was in the situation you mentioned I'd be adding the penalty to my score.




On the Monty/Wes front, it probably rests more on the official's shoulders than it does the player. After all, I might not feel that a ball 3' behind a cup is going to help me, and that may be the same feeling of the player whose ball it is. If a referee mentioned the rule to 'us' we'd probably catch his drift, and if he had to do it a second time 'we'd' surely increase our diligence.     


 










     




"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2016, 07:39:28 PM »
The determination of assisting is necessarily vague as what may reasonable assist a professional is different than what would reasonably assist someone else.  Again, I would suggest anyone interested in this to read ALL of Rule 22 and the related decisions as that is a good guideline. In your example, if YOU believe your ball is in a position to assist the play of your fellow competitor (22-1) you have the right to mark it.  If HE felt your ball reasonably interfered with his play (22-2) he could insist you mark.  If BOTH of you agreed to leave your ball there for the purpose of assisting him, then you are both DQ'd. (22-1).

Again, for examples of the Rule in practice, read the 7 decisions to get a sense of what is reasonable.

In a nutshell, this is a perfect example of why the rules of golf suck.  The rules are often vague, imprecise and require tons of decisions (like the law?) to be properly interpreted and like the law, experts are required to properly implement the rules. 

Isn't it time we strip down the rules and rebuild them in a manner which makes far more sense?
http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoConclusions.html

Ciao
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 07:41:05 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2016, 07:58:01 PM »
Sean - impossible at a competitive level but pretty easy at the local level...don't you think?

James Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2016, 08:20:46 PM »
As I understand the rules, this is a situation between the referee,the tournament committee and the players.  That's it.  No one outside that group has any standing.   Having armchair quarterbacks policing the rules through. TV set is not good for the game for many, many reasons.  Golf is one of the last games where we place the responsibility for enforcing the rules on the players and a very small group of overseeing officials that have relatively little discretion compared to other sports.  Sure, there are silly rules, but only because golf plays on the most varied playing field in sports.  Trying to enforce 100% malicious compliance with the rules from afar is not in keeping with the spirit of the game. 

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2016, 08:25:00 PM »
Chris,

I took your advice and read the decisions, and came across this one.  Perhaps I'm just reading this wrong, but it seems to be in direct contradiction to the original post of this thread!!  Or perhaps this is only so because its Match Play and not stroke paly??

22/5 Assisting Ball Lifted by Opponent Replaced on Request; Player's Ball Then Strikes Opponent's Ball and Opponent Lodges Claim 

Q. In a match between A and B, A's ball is near the hole in a position to serve as a backstop for B's ball. A lifts his ball to clean it. B requests A to replace his ball before he (B) putts. A protests but B insists that, under the Rules, A must replace his ball immediately. A replaces his ball but disputes B's right to require him to do so and claims the hole. B putts and his ball strikes A's ball and stops very close to the hole. A replaces his ball and holes out for a 4. B then holes out for a 4. The match continues and the claim is later referred to the Committee. How should the Committee rule?


A. The hole stands as played. The Rules do not require A to replace his ball, but B was not in breach of the Rules by asking A to replace it - see Rule 22-1.

Yes--it is Match Play and fundamentally different.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 08:34:24 PM by Chris Cupit »

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2016, 08:33:41 PM »
Lots of good points James.


For those that say the Rules are too complicated, suck, are not fair....here is an option:  Play by whatever rules you or your group wish.


I bet 99.99% of all rounds and those played by people on this board are not played perfectly by the Rules.  And guess what?  No one cares and the game is just fine.


There are  a fraction of players and rounds played by the Rules to begin with.  Let them play to an agreed upon set if Rules.  If anyone has a suggestion or thinks they can simplify the Rues, have at it--I challenge anyone here to make any substantive suggestions that could "simplify" the game.  Well, maybe a few, but the point is that all games by their definition have rules that are arbitrary.  If I play Monopoly I get $200 for passing go whether it takes me twenty rolls or five,  If I roll doubles (normally a good thing) three times in a a row I go to jail!  How is that fair?


All in all, the Rules are pretty good.  My humble opinion is that it is the attempt to bring more "fairness" into the Rules that has resulted in many of these silly situations.


Play the course as you find it and the ball as it lays.  Play hard, be fair and honest.


Oh, and at least bother to read the Rules before passing judgment on how stupid they are  ;D

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2016, 08:38:13 PM »
The determination of assisting is necessarily vague as what may reasonable assist a professional is different than what would reasonably assist someone else.  Again, I would suggest anyone interested in this to read ALL of Rule 22 and the related decisions as that is a good guideline. In your example, if YOU believe your ball is in a position to assist the play of your fellow competitor (22-1) you have the right to mark it.  If HE felt your ball reasonably interfered with his play (22-2) he could insist you mark.  If BOTH of you agreed to leave your ball there for the purpose of assisting him, then you are both DQ'd. (22-1).

Again, for examples of the Rule in practice, read the 7 decisions to get a sense of what is reasonable.

In a nutshell, this is a perfect example of why the rules of golf suck.  The rules are often vague, imprecise and require tons of decisions (like the law?) to be properly interpreted and like the law, experts are required to properly implement the rules. 

Isn't it time we strip down the rules and rebuild them in a manner which makes far more sense?
http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoConclusions.html

Ciao


Sean--Code 2 you mention have 27 Rules (instead of 34) and I think more subsections.  I like much of it and applaud John and his group for an alternative.  I am sure though that there would be plenty of unfairness in that Code as well if you try and find it.

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2016, 08:41:12 PM »
One other point--I love Match Play and wish more people truly played it.  A fundamental difference is neither player in a match really has to know any damn rules at all.  In a match if the players simply do what they think is fair and unintentionally break a rule, no problem and the hole or match stands as played.  Heck, a player can even knowingly overlook a breach of his opponent without issue in a match.


The issue here is stroke play where 156 players have an interest to make sure that everyone in the event plays by the same set if rules.

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2016, 08:46:26 PM »
Next ruling:

I was putting from an inch on the fringe yesterday. As I was getting into my address I had the putter on the ground a fraction of an inch behind the ball. While looking at the hole and getting my feet into position the ball rolled back against the face of my putter.

The guys in our group and the pro shop staff said the rule has changed and that it was my call whether or not I made it move.

What's the right call?


FWIW, given those facts I would say that it is more likely than not that your placement of the club a fraction of an inch behind the ball, and your looking away for a moment caused a depression in the grass that caused the ball to move.  This is a decision where any doubt is resolved against the play.  I would say replace the ball under penalty of one stroke.


However, if you were certain or almost certain that nothing you did caused the ball to move I would defer to the player and say no penalty.  When you looked away from the ball with he club a fraction of an inch away, to me it is likely you or the weight of the club behind the ball, caused the movement.


Just think, if we had TV we could review the video and know for sure  ;D

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2016, 04:07:55 AM »
The determination of assisting is necessarily vague as what may reasonable assist a professional is different than what would reasonably assist someone else.  Again, I would suggest anyone interested in this to read ALL of Rule 22 and the related decisions as that is a good guideline. In your example, if YOU believe your ball is in a position to assist the play of your fellow competitor (22-1) you have the right to mark it.  If HE felt your ball reasonably interfered with his play (22-2) he could insist you mark.  If BOTH of you agreed to leave your ball there for the purpose of assisting him, then you are both DQ'd. (22-1).

Again, for examples of the Rule in practice, read the 7 decisions to get a sense of what is reasonable.

In a nutshell, this is a perfect example of why the rules of golf suck.  The rules are often vague, imprecise and require tons of decisions (like the law?) to be properly interpreted and like the law, experts are required to properly implement the rules. 

Isn't it time we strip down the rules and rebuild them in a manner which makes far more sense?
http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoConclusions.html

Ciao


Sean--Code 2 you mention have 27 Rules (instead of 34) and I think more subsections.  I like much of it and applaud John and his group for an alternative.  I am sure though that there would be plenty of unfairness in that Code as well if you try and find it.


Chris


The idea presented by the link is quite interesting reading...especially considering the vast amount of experience the authors have with the rules.


You are right, we can all play by whichever rules we choose.  As you state, most people don't play by the rules, but I don't think this is on purpose.  The complexity, verbosity and poor writing of the rules all play major roles as to why the rules are not understood and implemented as well as the they should or could be. This issue will always come down to rules guys disagreeing with a huge percentage of the rank and file...which of course makes me wonder if the rules guys much care about the user friendliness of the rules. To me, if the understanding of the rules is confusing, confounding and overly burdensome...its time to look at the rules...not the people who are meant to play by the rules. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2016, 08:47:44 AM »
Sean,


I hear your frustration but when the game started we had very few rules.  There was no group of "rules guys" with any agenda--simply players wanting to have some sort of standard to play by.  Especially with the rise of stroke play and the imperative to have everyone in those competitions (sometimes held over multiple courses over multiple days), play the same game, the rules expanded.


The rules are in fact written well.  They may not be how people write today but great care is taken to make sure the book is grammatically correct.  Also, please look at older Rule books from the 50's, 60's or even the 90's.  The structure and organization are significantly improved.  There is an order to the rules for sure. 


IMO the biggest problem people have is that they need a ruling and start their search in the Decisions without ever having read the book in toto.  An individual decision can seem unfair or silly when not read in the context of the entire set of Rules.  It is kind of like people pulling out Bible passages that seem ridiculous because they are taken completely out of context.  Or they pull out a verse thinking it means one thing when in fact it actually means quite the opposite ("an eye for an eye"...)


Another point to remember is that golf is not one game:  there is stroke play and match play and the two are fundamentally different and the rules reflect that.  Within Match Play you have Foursomes, Four-Balls, Three-Balls, Best Balls and Singles and for Stroke Play there are Foursomes, Four-balls, (Three balls in theory), Stablefords, Bogey and Par Competitions not to mention individual and team events--literally there are about a dozen unique games covered by the rules and two of them (Match and Stroke) are so fundamentally different that combining the two in any way is specifically prohibited by the Rules themselves.


I have know John (and David) for nearly twenty years and I, too, have tackled the problem of complexity in the Rules and have also come up with a variant on golf.  My game(s) still differentiate between Matches and Stroke Play but my game is so simple that I actually allow for the possibility that if playing stroke play you may not be able to "finish" and post a score and thus I am encouraging the overwhelming amount of play to steer towards matches which is IMHO, the way the game was meant to be played anyway.


In my stroke play game:
1.  Play the ball as it lies and the course as you find it. 
2.  If you ever wish to touch your ball for any reason, you can do so under penalty of one stroke and replace the ball within two club-lengths of where it originally lay.  (Ball on cart path--play it or take a stroke.  Ball on green with a hunk of mud on it--play it or it costs you a stroke to clean.  Ball in impossible lie in bunker--one stroke and move it two club-lengths anywhere no nearer the hole.)
3.  If you lose your ball for any reason or hit it out of bounds, you must estimate where the ball was lost and under penalty of two strokes place a ball anywhere on the course no nearer the hole than where your lost ball is estimated to be.
4.  You must begin your round with a set number of golf balls as determined by the Committee though NEVER more than six (6).  (E.G. a "professional event may have a three ball limit, or four or whatever.)  If you run out of balls your round is over and your "score" is your total number of strokes through the last hole you were able to complete written like this:  75/16  This player had 75 strokes when he ran out of balls having completed 16 holes.  He may have been hitting his 76th or 77th stroke somewhere on the 17th hole when he ran out of balls.
5.  You "win" by completing all 18 holes and having the lowest score.  If no one completes all 18 without running out of balls, whoever has the most holes completed in the fewest strokes wins.  So, 75/16 beats 62/15.  The emphasis is on "ball control" in this game.


No more stroke and distance penalties.
No more dropping--always place.
No "hand ball".  Play your golf ball as it lies or take a penalty.
Emphasis on controlling your golf ball.
Many will prefer matches as this game is "tough".  You may not finish all 18 holes with a traditional score.
Emphasis on hitting the ball versus putting.
Courses would need to play dry and firm since there is no more free relief for casual water or GUR.  Players who can control their trajectory on wet days have a huge advantage.




V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2016, 09:05:49 AM »
Though I imagine resistance/painful evolution, I love #4 here:


4.  You must begin your round with a set number of golf balls as determined by the Committee though NEVER more than six (6).  (E.G. a "professional event may have a three ball limit, or four or whatever.)  If you run out of balls your round is over and your "score" is your total number of strokes through the last hole you were able to complete


[/size]It reminds me of the needling exchanges between players, caddies over the years (some guys carry 25+ balls in their bag), when I came up with the "8-ball" rule some years ago...when they asked me how I arrived at that figure, I told them...


If you lose six (6) balls anywhere short of the 18th green, you're so disgusted, don't want to play anyway...
+
One (1) to come in with from wherever on the course.
+
One (1) to start the next round, before you remember what happened and the shop can get two sleeves out to you in the first fairway.


cheers
vk
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2016, 10:01:40 AM »
Though I imagine resistance/painful evolution, I love #4 here:


4.  You must begin your round with a set number of golf balls as determined by the Committee though NEVER more than six (6).  (E.G. a "professional event may have a three ball limit, or four or whatever.)  If you run out of balls your round is over and your "score" is your total number of strokes through the last hole you were able to complete


[/size]It reminds me of the needling exchanges between players, caddies over the years (some guys carry 25+ balls in their bag), when I came up with the "8-ball" rule some years ago...when they asked me how I arrived at that figure, I told them...


If you lose six (6) balls anywhere short of the 18th green, you're so disgusted, don't want to play anyway...
+
One (1) to come in with from wherever on the course.
+
One (1) to start the next round, before you remember what happened and the shop can get two sleeves out to you in the first fairway.


cheers
vk

I am pretty sure my support among the caddie lobby is strong ;D

First time I caddied for my dad in a pro event I went in the night before and pretty much cleaned out his back.  Big staff bag with three balls and no rain gear or umbrella anywhere nearby.  I was twelve and figured he never lost balls anyway so....That lasted one round!

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2016, 12:00:03 PM »
Chris,

Sounds like the stymie is in full effect here....you guys are vicious.

P.S.  I'm guessing rule 4 would be modified on a course like Bay Hill?  Or it'd be a quick 9 holes and done.  ;)

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Hail Lanny Wadlins - He Finally Called Out Collusion
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2016, 12:45:22 PM »
Chris,

Sounds like the stymie is in full effect here....you guys are vicious.

P.S.  I'm guessing rule 4 would be modified on a course like Bay Hill?  Or it'd be a quick 9 holes and done.  ;)


Yeah it would be a different game for sure and because it is so tough it may encourage more people to play matches which would be a good thing.  I do think professionals and elite amateurs could play with a ball limit.  If it takes a person more than 6 balls to play 18 holes then I don't think they should be too worried about playing stroke play "by the rules".


But my system allows for a winner if no one finishes all 18 so.......


I fully accept my views are neanderthalish  ;D  (like my spelling).

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back