salfordlad
Well-known member
That is a different question and I do not speak for the USGA. My thought would be if you think it's a ball then you should be investigating further.
Can you declareca ball lost?
- Thread starter Swinglowandslow
- Start date
rulefan
Tour Winner
Was this another response only available to facebook subscribers?
It seems that we are playing to two sets of rules. Those for facebook subscribers and those for the rest of the world who go by the book..
salfordlad
Well-known member
I don't think this suggestion of "two sets of rules" makes the slightest bit of sense.
The words I provided above are from a FB q/a. But there is no requirement to subscribe to read/scroll the material as it is a public site. You can choose to wade through the volume of diverse quality material there or not. If you want to do more, then log in processes are required, just like every other golf rules website I've seen, including this one. This is not an endorsement of FB more generally, I'm not a fan.
There are also occasional and random bits of rules guidance from the R&A - videos, Grant Moir explaining things and there was a rules q/a live thing last year - so they also do some of this. The difference is the USGA currently genuinely resources it and has regular input that on occasion - like the example I brought here - crosses into the highest levels of RB thinking. I can only say in the absence of these efforts the USGA is supporting, we would all be more in the dark about understanding the rules. I would also love to see the R&A doing much more public engagement of this nature. Sadly, they seem not to and in their case much of their material now chooses even more esoteric publication platforms like Instagram.
Many of us come here to share and extend our awareness of the rules, however it is gathered, whether that is personal rules study, workshops attended, exams sat, ruling questions sent in to RBs and other national authorities - or yes, even from the Official Guide. So I don't think it was ever a case of FB readers versus "the rest of the world who go by the book.."
rulefan
Tour Winner
The most obvious place to go for how the rules officially work is the the RBs themselves. Why can't they put all these ostensibly authorised decisions/rulings/clarifications on their own dedicated website(s)? They are in effect disenfranchising many hundreds of thousands of players who for legitimate reasons do not wish to sign up to other commercial organisations.
If you were to be asked to make a ruling based on a FB post and the player or TD were to challenge it on the basis 'it isn't in any official publication from the R&A' how would you resolve the issue out in the field?
I am a referee. I know of no colleagues on my panel who use Facebook. Some may but none has ever mentioned in pre/post competition or general conversation 'Did you see the ruling on facebook re ....?'
Incidentally, do the level 2 or 3 tests include any situations relating to fb queries? I'm sure mine didn't. But then of course I wouldn't know
salfordlad
Well-known member
The simple fact is that the USGA FB rules site over recent years has produced a wide range of input from the USGA to an extremely diverse array of questions, input that sometimes goes well beyond what is available in the Official Guide. Is that of any value? IMO, absolutely, it is invaluable to the serious rules student.The most obvious place to go for how the rules officially work is the the RBs themselves. Why can't they put all these ostensibly authorised decisions/rulings/clarifications on their own dedicated website(s)? They are in effect disenfranchising many hundreds of thousands of players who for legitimate reasons do not wish to sign up to other commercial organisations.
If you were to be asked to make a ruling based on a FB post and the player or TD were to challenge it on the basis 'it isn't in any official publication from the R&A' how would you resolve the issue out in the field?
I am a referee. I know of no colleagues on my panel who use Facebook. Some may but none has ever mentioned in pre/post competition or general conversation 'Did you see the ruling on facebook re ....?'
Incidentally, do the level 2 or 3 tests include any situations relating to fb queries? I'm sure mine didn't. But then of course I wouldn't know
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
It may be invaluable to some but it is inaccessible to many. Is the information organised in any way. ie is there a structure that categorises associated items eg bunkers, lost ball.
But you haven't answered my question about the on field incident.
Swango1980
Well-known member
The Rules of Golf are pretty comprehensive, which include many interpretations which can cover many specific scenarios. However, golf is a game in which there could be millions of slightly different variations of an incident, and there will be areas where you could have a cross over between applying one rule, or a different rule. It might not always be obvious which would be the most applicable for an unusual circumstance. Granted, the necessity for a player to raise the fact they may have seen another players original ball, when the player didn't want to find it, might be a situation that could be advised to be one of the interpretations.
You cannot cover every single possible scenario in the main Rules of Golf. So, using platforms such as facebook seem to be a really great idea, for ongoing dialogue between interested parties, and having input from the authorities themselves. If it wasn't on facebook, what other platform would be better?
However, for those who are trained referees, or training to be a rules official, what exposure do they have to this huge amount of information? Is it simply that they should just get themselves on facebook? Or, it there a much more comprehensive book (compared to the rules of golf), that goes into huge depth and detail and will try and cover many more specific scenarios compared to those within the interpretations? I would have thought for somebody wishing to get to that level, there is a lot more information out there for them, compared to what us normal golfers can get from looking at the main Rules of Golf document.
You cannot cover every single possible scenario in the main Rules of Golf. So, using platforms such as facebook seem to be a really great idea, for ongoing dialogue between interested parties, and having input from the authorities themselves. If it wasn't on facebook, what other platform would be better?
However, for those who are trained referees, or training to be a rules official, what exposure do they have to this huge amount of information? Is it simply that they should just get themselves on facebook? Or, it there a much more comprehensive book (compared to the rules of golf), that goes into huge depth and detail and will try and cover many more specific scenarios compared to those within the interpretations? I would have thought for somebody wishing to get to that level, there is a lot more information out there for them, compared to what us normal golfers can get from looking at the main Rules of Golf document.
salfordlad
Well-known member
There is no short cut, but there is a vast amount of high quality rules information out there for those wishing to raise their rules knowledge/awareness. Here's some samples:
Do every rules quiz on the general area.org site (around 850-900 questions)
Do every rules quiz on the USGA website (700 questions, but the first 500 - other than the 'advanced' set are the '500 quiz'on the general area.org site)
Do every rules quiz on the R&A site (I think it is around 300 questions - someone else may have a more sophisticated count)
Attend rules workshops in your area and roll up for any of the many offerings by the USGA (they welcome participants from across the ditch)
Do the Short Course on the Rules on the USGA site (most of this is 'extreme' rules issues)
Do the R&A's Rules Academy course (R&A Level 1 Rules Certification)
Read the USGA input to all questions on the USGA Rules FB page (log in/FB subscription not required)
View all the joint R&A/USGA video and instructional material on their sites
There are multiple rules discussion sites other than this one
There are multiple very good rules education sites run by enthusiasts outside the RBs - their knowledge is not always perfect - but whose is?????? Some of these are internet based, some sit on the FB platform, some are on the YouTube platform. Here's one web-based that I think is extremely good - The Roving Official - this site draws on some of the material on the general area.org site but also adds further value with it's excellent lay out and subject indexing - it's run by a rules nerd with very good software skills
Many of the state associations in the US have good rules educational elements on their sites - there are, literally, dozens of them (eg ncga, scga, oga, fga etc, etc)
Is it simply that they should just get themselves on facebook? Absolutely not, you build knowledge by focussing on the Official Guide plus many of the above. The FB site offers something unique, but it cannot substitute for a wide exposure to the sort of material flagged above.
Colin L
Tour Winner
The infuriating aspect of the USGA Facebook is that it isn't structured in any way at all. Even within a single discussion it can be very difficult to follow. But, and it's an important but, when the USGA provide an answer to a question, it is always placed immediately after the question and so you can, if you choose, just read the question and the USGA answer and miss out seemingly interminable conversations in which many people seem to think it necessary to post the same answer as a dozen others have already contributed and which contain a surprising amount of misapplication and misunderstanding of the Rules.
I don't get the inaccessible to many bit, though. All you need is an internet connection and there can't be that many who are interested in the matter who don't.
salfordlad
Well-known member
I really don't see value in your questions, hence my reply in #85. Access this information or not, it is solely up to you. And keep in mind how this thread sub-theme kicked off - you pitched a question at a contributor (as you commonly do) challenging him to explain what rules supported his view. And I answered, drawing on useful public information from the USGA.
You suggested earlier the USGA is in effect disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people by putting rules information on the FB site. Gotta say, I think you have that totally backward. They are, in fact, making high quality information available to anyone - something that is not available anywhere else and has no equivalent in terms of rules information offered to the world by the R&A.
But you haven't answered my question about the on field incident.....
My experience is there can be a wide variety of situations out on the course for which there is no explicit answer in the Official Guide. I think the key drivers of this are the extensive changes embodied in the 2019 Rules and the erasure of around half of the former 1300 Decisions. That is, there are many practical questions where a TD is not going to find a written answer if an issue is particularly complicated. This is why referees/Committee are paid the big bucks (LOL), we have to make subjective judgements, assess whether behaviours are "reasonable" and come up with answers to all the weird stuff that can and does happen on the course. If I happen to know the USGA has published some words that are not in the Official Guide, I am sure that any TD worth their salt would be extremely appreciative of being apprised of this. It is simply input to the final decision that is made in a tournament situation - and as we know, whatever the Committee decides is right.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Getting away from my issue about whether it is the right medium I just tried to have a look at it. But kept getting told I had to login. Have I got the right link? https://www.facebook.com/groups/RulesOfGolf
When I first tried I got in ok. Closed the page whilst did something else and then tried to get back in but got the login problem.
Now found I had set up a fb account yonks ago but never used it. Now reset my pw and have managed to get in.
Now I can see that it is a bit of a mish mash. A high proportion are really only confirming what is in the book. I couldn't see anything where an original 'ruling' is being made. Which is a pity. It would have been useful if the new 'clarifications/interpretations' (some of which have been reported here or other fora) were highlighted in some way. Wheat and chaff comes to mind.
But I suppose at least the USGA are making an effort.
Last edited:
salfordlad
Well-known member
Patronising comes to my mind. And a pity that you didn't find the new ground broken in responding to a 6 September post. But, hey, at least you are making an effort.
Colin L
Tour Winner
It's much the same as any other rules forum (though I wish they had used a standard forum format rather than FB) but with the great advantage that much of the time you get a definitive ruling from the USGA. As with other forums, a bit of familiarity and you begin to recognise the contributors to respect and listen to I'll never grow to be at ease with the FB format but am now valuing the site for the voices of some very knowledgeable folk and especially for the voice of the USGA - often just for confirmation of my own understanding but often too for a new insight that could save me from an embarrassing mistake. In a way it's an already large Decisions book but without the index.
Go on, embrace the new!
Colin L
Tour Winner
It's much the same as any other rules forum (though I wish they had used a standard forum format rather than FB) but with the great advantage that much of the time you get a definitive ruling from the USGA. As with other forums, a bit of familiarity and you begin to recognise the contributors to respect and listen to I'll never grow to be at ease with the FB format but am now valuing the site for the voices of some very knowledgeable folk and especially for the voice of the USGA - often just for confirmation of my own understanding but often too for a new insight that could save me from an embarrassing mistake.
Go on, embrace the new!
Similar threads
