Didn't know my ball had been marked.

[Deleted member 31467]

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time I ask a rules question and people respond with 'read the rules, it's all clear in there'

 

[salfordlad]

I'm going to bookmark this thread for the next time I ask a rules question and people respond with 'read the rules, it's all clear in there'

LOL, no need to be too pessimistic, generally it is true. But sometimes.........

 

[tobybarker]

someone please nutshell the answer! thanks

 

[rulefan]

someone please nutshell the answer! thanks

Post #2 ?

 

[salfordlad]

Post #2 ?

Why would you point there, it's incorrect, as noted above.

 

[salfordlad]

someone please nutshell the answer! thanks

Seriously, the issues here are some of the most complex in the Rule book. If you wish to nutshell a specific question, I'll nutshell an answer.

 

[Steven Rules]

someone please nutshell the answer! thanks

The 'nutshell' is that the player proceeded correctly in #1.

The reasoning, however, is complex and is set out in ever-increasing detail in #4, #9 and #17.

The Clarification quoted in #2 - 9.6/3 - is not the correct Clarification for this situation. (A trap that I also fell into but, in my defence, the correct Clarification - 9.6/4 - is drafted in a way that seems aimed at causing maximum confusion.)

Part of the 'nutshell' involves understanding that a player can be playing a wrong ball even though it is his/her own ball.

 

[tobybarker]

The 'nutshell' is that the player proceeded correctly in #1.

The reasoning, however, is complex and is set out in ever-increasing detail in #4, #9 and #17.

The Clarification quoted in #2 - 9.6/3 - is not the correct Clarification for this situation. (A trap that I also fell into but, in my defence, the correct Clarification - 9.6/4 - is drafted in a way that seems aimed at causing maximum confusion.)

Part of the 'nutshell' involves understanding that a player can be playing a wrong ball even though it is his/her own ball.

ta. not so hard then. post 1. got it. this is post 27: don't you just love forums?

 

[Deleted member 31467]

ta. not so hard then. post 1. got it. this is post 27: don't you just love forums?

The ironic thing is most of the posts are rules guys disagreeing with each other

 

[rulefan]

Why would you point there, it's incorrect, as noted above.

Oops

Of course you are correct but right or wrong, until it's in the book most referees will not rule that way.

 

[salfordlad]

Oops

Of course you are correct but right or wrong, until it's in the book most referees will not rule that way.

I'd like to think that forums like this will widen understanding of the correct answer. I would also very much support 9.6/4 getting some re-drafting. But there is considerable RB resistance to the book getting bigger and to additional Clarifications.

 

[Colin L]

I can understand the reluctance to having additional Clarifications and ending up with something the size of the old Decisions book but none too happy at what seems to be happening with the USGA's Facebook pages becoming some sort of of chaotic equivalent stuffed full of some quite remarkably wrong contributions, many correct but hugely repetitive responses and occasional nuggets of information from the USGA. But that's another story that's been well enough aired. In this instance, 9.6/4 could be, should be re-written without adding to the length. As it stands, it says nothing in the body of its text about a ball in play being lifted. It is entirely about a ball that has come to rest out of bounds and is thus already not in play when picked up by the spectator or whoever. The picking up has no significance. I doubt if we really need a Clarification to deal with that situation, but it's clear we need guidance in the rules that a ball in play deliberately moved by any person is considered to have been lifted. And, you know what, maybe the last of bit of that sentence says all that's needed - in 15 words.

 

[salfordlad]

I can understand the reluctance to having additional Clarifications and ending up with something the size of the old Decisions book but none too happy at what seems to be happening with the USGA's Facebook pages becoming some sort of of chaotic equivalent stuffed full of some quite remarkably wrong contributions, many correct but hugely repetitive responses and occasional nuggets of information from the USGA. But that's another story that's been well enough aired. In this instance, 9.6/4 could be, should be re-written without adding to the length. As it stands, it says nothing in the body of its text about a ball in play being lifted. It is entirely about a ball that has come to rest out of bounds and is thus already not in play when picked up by the spectator or whoever. The picking up has no significance. I doubt if we really need a Clarification to deal with that situation, but it's clear we need guidance in the rules that a ball in play deliberately moved by any person is considered to have been lifted. And, you know what, maybe the last of bit of that sentence says all that's needed - in 15 words.

IMO, the problem here is the Rules, not the Clarifications. There is a lack of appropriate, necessary information in Rule 14, which should dovetail constructively with additional wording in Rule 9, that gets across the lift v moved issues satisfactorily.
On the messy Facebook issue, I agree that the forum has multiple shortcomings. But the simple fact is it is only the USGA that is putting any significant resources into the rules public education process, particularly through their extensive workshop programs available face to face and through zoom-type online processes (which I highly recommend if you can't get to a US Workshop), as well as the FB initiative.

 

[Colin L]

IMO, the problem here is the Rules, not the Clarifications. There is a lack of appropriate, necessary information in Rule 14, which should dovetail constructively with additional wording in Rule 9, that gets across the lift v moved issues satisfactorily.
On the messy Facebook issue, I agree that the forum has multiple shortcomings. But the simple fact is it is only the USGA that is putting any significant resources into the rules public education process, particularly through their extensive workshop programs available face to face and through zoom-type online processes (which I highly recommend if you can't get to a US Workshop), as well as the FB initiative.

Most of my grumpiness about the FaceBook page is because I find it's structuring extraordinarily difficult to follow and that's not the fault of the USGA (although it could have chosen a different format). Its commitment to player education and support is indeed extensive and impressive.