Golf rules we let people break - what is one you know of?

[Arthur Wedge]

One that we break regularly in our bounce games is giving a free move if you’re by a tree root (of which we have plenty). Having nearly lost an eye after a ball ricocheted off a root, we see this as a sensible and safe option. It does no harm and if someone gets a couple of inches leeway, who gives a chuff.

Of course I wouldn’t do it in a comp, but then I don’t play in comps anymore.

There is a model LR that can be used to allow relief from roots - Woburn use it and more clubs should

 

[Swango1980]

I can't get my head around this viewpoint.

If Group A tee off at 10am and walk off the course at 1.30pm, they've taken 3.5 hours.
If Group B tee off at 1007 because Group A are out of range on the first fairway, then keep their place, they will finish more or less on 1.37pm.
If Group C then tee off at 1014 because Group B are out of range on the first fairway, then keep up at the same speed, they will finish at 1.44pm.

The only thing that can be affected if groups tee off too early is that tee times get put back if groups are waiting on the first fairway, but once everyone is underway and moving how does teeing off earlier than the arbitrary 10 minutes slow things down?

If you don't understand it, I guess you don't drive a car, and sometimes wonder why you are in a huge queue with long delays on a motorway, with no obvious cause (i.e. not caused by an accident, roadworks or a junction)? Of course, there is a cause. When traffic flows become more dense, all traffic could theoretically travel from Point A to Point B in exactly the same time, if they all flowed uniformly. But, they don't. The first car will get between Point A-B in its desired time. The second car will pretty much also do the same, provided they travel at the same speed, at least, as the car in front. But, every now and then they may need to slightly squeeze the breaks as they may be going faster than car in front. If the third car is trying to keep up, they to will also have to squeeze the breaks, but more frequently. Because they'll need to slow down when car in front slows down (and thus may sometimes slow down even more than car in front), and slow down at other times when they happen to be going faster. Multiply that by many vehicles following when traffic flows become dense enough, cars will come to a complete standstill for significant periods of time. It is why ramp metering is a technique used on slip roads onto a lot of busy motorways. Signals stop traffic for a short period, designed to break up traffic flow onto the motorway, and actually help reduce delays and increase capacity of a motorway during peak times.

The above can also apply to golf on a really busy course. Not all groups, even if they are known quick players, will go round each hole at an absolutely uniform rate. A group may be held up by group in front (and groups behind them held up) on one hole, but on next hole fall behind a bit as they suddenly need to look for a ball. Catch up again, fall behind again, and the problem just gets worse the further you go back through the course to other groups. Can actually get worse when groups are let through. Not for the group being let through, but for the groups behind that, because that introduces quite a significant extra delay (even if the group is let through as efficiently as possible).

At my last course, before tee bookings, on busy weekend mornings we generally always had big delays on the 3rd tee, it became a real bottleneck. Delays at other areas, rounds could be well over 4 hours for a 4 ball. When tee bookings were introduced, it was noticeable how these delays came down. Rounds did seem to become much less.

For me, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a club introduced a bigger gap in tee bookings, say every 30 minutes. So, you may have 8 minute gaps between most groups, but every 30 minutes have a 12 minute gap. A bit like ramp metering, it just gives you an extra break between groups every now and then, and help stop the ripple back effect of lots of groups getting bunched up and causing bigger delays

 

[need_my_wedge]

For me, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a club introduced a bigger gap in tee bookings, say every 30 minutes. So, you may have 8 minute gaps between most groups, but every 30 minutes have a 12 minute gap. A bit like ramp metering, it just gives you an extra break between groups every now and then, and help stop the ripple back effect of lots of groups getting bunched up and causing bigger delays

We call that a speed gap, and absolutely helps ease congestion on the course.

 

[bernix]

the one rules infraction that makes me angry is the nearest point of relieve when taking a free drop
it is the NEAREST and not nicest point and you have to take FULL RELIEVE
not only have i witnessed infractions of the rule countless times, when pointing out many players didn't even know they broke a rule

 

[Swango1980]

Yeah, this was my point about the grey area. 'Virtually certain' is open to interpretation. People will often think "I didn't find it anywhere on land therefore it must be in the lake" and in their mind, that is virtual certainty. But in truth they have no idea. If the rule said you must be 100% certain it's in the lake, then maybe they'd react differently.

However, it is a rule we 'let people break' - because it's easier all round. If you call them on it, you're effectively sending them back to replay their previous shot which means a lot of standing, waiting around and holding up play. Given that it's a penalty drop anyway for going in the hazard, I think most people are happy for someone to proceed that way out of convenience.

We've a lateral penalty area all the way down the right side of our 8th hole. It is a dyke about 4/5 yards wide, and on the other side there is a bit of flat land, but generally heavy trees and rough. So many people will hit a big slice, clearly going over the PA (rather than hitting fairway and bouncing in), and the ball could easily be in the PA but just as easily be in the garbage on the other side. Completely depends on exactly where it came down, did it hit a tree on way down, which way did it deflect, etc. And, I've played with a lot of people who clearly want to take a drop if they cannot find their ball. So, when I see that big slice, I immediately say something like "Hmmm, that could well be over on the other side. Might get lucky and find it, but might be worth a provisional in case you can't". At least the shot is fresh in their mind so they cannot deny it might be on the other side, and if they try to claim "I can just drop one down there", then it is a good time to tell them that won't be possible if there is a good chance it is on the other side but lost.

Personally, I'd like to see the club make the other side of the PA be all the way up to the 11th hole (i.e. even further right, after all the rough and trees), as it will remove the inconsistency of what different golfers do in different groups. It would just mean all golfers have the option of taking a penalty drop if they don't find the ball. I think there are a lot of things clubs can do to reduce any controversial decisions. Like, having dense rough bordering but outside a PA doesn't seem a good idea to me, because a players ball could be flying towards PA, but then there is doubt as to whether it went in PA or buried in rough next to stakes. Whereas if they cut the rough away, or put stakes further out so rough was in PA margin, it would make things a lot more straight-forward

 

[Swango1980]

the one rules infraction that makes me angry is the nearest point of relieve when taking a free drop
it is the NEAREST and not nicest point and you have to take FULL RELIEVE
not only have i witnessed infractions of the rule countless times, when pointing out many players didn't even know they broke a rule

It's a classic. Like a player whose ball is on a path, and they'll choose to take relief on the side of the path that gives them a better shot, even if the nearest point is clearly on the other side, that gives them no shot, or a really awkward one. And some will not realise the nearest point could be completely different depending on whether you are left or right handed.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yeah, this was my point about the grey area. 'Virtually certain' is open to interpretation. People will often think "I didn't find it anywhere on land therefore it must be in the lake" and in their mind, that is virtual certainty. But in truth they have no idea. If the rule said you must be 100% certain it's in the lake, then maybe they'd react differently.

However, it is a rule we 'let people break' - because it's easier all round. If you call them on it, you're effectively sending them back to replay their previous shot which means a lot of standing, waiting around and holding up play. Given that it's a penalty drop anyway for going in the hazard, I think most people are happy for someone to proceed that way out of convenience.

In this scenario the ball is either lost in the lake or lost outside the lake.
The player must decide and state whether he/she has more than 95% certainty that the ball is lost in the lake. That is the decision that must be made.
There really is no scope for not being able to make that decision.
If a fellow competitor believes that decision to be unsound, there is procedure for acting accordingly - informing the committee of what you observed.
But in social play, there is ample scope for having a discussion at the time of the decision/indecision.

All grey areas or wishy-washy-ness that occur is from not understanding the concept of "more than 95% certainty".
The rule is sound.
Catering for those who do not understand the rule by changing the rule is not sound.
I am more than 95% certain of this.
Which means I have a only a very small doubt that I am correct.
I could be wrong, but I believe the rule does not need to be changed.

 

[Orikoru]

In this scenario the ball is either lost in the lake or lost outside the lake.
The player must decide and state whether he/she has more than 95% certainty that the ball is lost in the lake. That is the decision that must be made.
There really is no scope for not being able to make that decision.
If a fellow competitor believes that decision to be unsound, there is procedure for acting accordingly - informing the committee of what you observed.
But in social play, there is ample scope for having a discussion at the time of the decision/indecision.

All grey areas or wishy-washy-ness that occur is from not understanding the concept of "more than 95% certainty".
The rule is sound.
Catering for those who do not understand the rule by changing the rule is not sound.
I am more than 95% certain of this.
Which means I have a only a very small doubt that I am correct.
I could be wrong, but I believe the rule does not need to be changed.

95% is an arbitrary figure when dealing with a state of mind that can't be quantified. You won't hear anyone saying "oh I'm only 93% sure so I'll head back to the tee". The number doesn't help anyone. It just makes people think they don't have to be 100% i.e. they don't have to have seen it go in the hazard. You give them an inch.

If you do believe a decision to be unsound, as you put it, how does that conversation go? "There's no way you can be 95% certain. Maybe 80% at best." "Well, you're wrong, I am 95% certain it's in the hazard so I'm taking a drop." Discussion over? You can't gauge another person's mental state of what they believe so you can't really question it any further can you?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want the rule changed either, because it benefits the golfer, clearly, whereas rules that are black and white often don't.

 

[doublebogey7]

If it was 100% you'd pretty much have to see the ball go in the hazard to be 100% sure it's there wouldn't you? It removes the grey area of '95%' when in they are only 60%. But everyone knows what 100% means.

So you've never seen a ball enter the water and come out again?? Come on we all know that 60% doesn't mean 95% yet your group accept it, don't see how that would change if they made it 100%.

 

[bernix]

It's a classic. Like a player whose ball is on a path, and they'll choose to take relief on the side of the path that gives them a better shot, even if the nearest point is clearly on the other side, that gives them no shot, or a really awkward one. And some will not realise the nearest point could be completely different depending on whether you are left or right handed.

and the players that after taking relieve still stand on the path because dropping further away from the path would result in an horrendous lie

 

[Voyager EMH]

95% is an arbitrary figure when dealing with a state of mind that can't be quantified. You won't hear anyone saying "oh I'm only 93% sure so I'll head back to the tee". The number doesn't help anyone. It just makes people think they don't have to be 100% i.e. they don't have to have seen it go in the hazard. You give them an inch.

If you do believe a decision to be unsound, as you put it, how does that conversation go? "There's no way you can be 95% certain. Maybe 80% at best." "Well, you're wrong, I am 95% certain it's in the hazard so I'm taking a drop." Discussion over? You can't gauge another person's mental state of what they believe so you can't really question it any further can you?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want the rule changed either, because it benefits the golfer, clearly, whereas rules that are black and white often don't.

No conversation in competitive play - you report what you observed to the committee and they deal with it. (or not deal with it)

In social play - the conversation will be what it will be - this will vary greatly across the country - endless possibilities maybe.

I for one have no difficulty in deciding whether or not I have 95% certainty in these scenarios.
I might have 98% certainty that my ball is in the lake - but the fact that there is a 2% chance that I am wrong does not hinder my decision. There will be no penalty to me if a player finds my ball outside the lake 10 minutes later. That was one of those 1 in 50 cases that rules allows for.
But if I decided that I had only 92% certainty, but then a player finds my ball in the lake 10 minutes later - there is also no penalty to me for being "wrong".
I made a decision as best as I could in the circumstances. That is what a player is required to do. No grey areas need apply.

 

[Orikoru]

No conversation in competitive play - you report what you observed to the committee and they deal with it. (or not deal with it)

In social play - the conversation will be what it will be - this will vary greatly across the country - endless possibilities maybe.

I for one have no difficulty in deciding whether or not I have 95% certainty in these scenarios.
I might have 98% certainty that my ball is in the lake - but the fact that there is a 2% chance that I am wrong does not hinder my decision. There will be no penalty to me if a player finds my ball outside the lake 10 minutes later. That was one of those 1 in 50 cases that rules allows for.
But if I decided that I had only 92% certainty, but then a player finds my ball in the lake 10 minutes later - there is also no penalty to me for being "wrong".
I made a decision as best as I could in the circumstances. That is what a player is required to do. No grey areas need apply.

Well they weren't even there, how the hell can they ascertain how certain the chap was??

 

[Eesat 90210]

If you don't understand it, I guess you don't drive a car, and sometimes wonder why you are in a huge queue with long delays on a motorway, with no obvious cause (i.e. not caused by an accident, roadworks or a junction)?

I got this far and didn't bother reading the rest of the undoubtedly patronising crap.

 

[Swango1980]

I got this far and didn't bother reading the rest of the undoubtedly patronising crap.

Which is the reason you obviously don't understand such concepts

 

[clubchamp98]

Well they weren't even there, how the hell can they ascertain how certain the chap was??

Yes .
His word against his.
That just caused bad feeling and arguments.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Well they weren't even there, how the hell can they ascertain how certain the chap was??

They can't, but they can listen to or read your statement of what you observed and decide if any action needs to be taken.

 

[Eesat 90210]

Which is the reason you obviously don't understand such concepts

Uncalled for, I'll rise above that.
Not clever mate.

 

[Swango1980]

Uncalled for, I'll rise above that.
Not clever mate.

Apologies, but you started it by getting personal.

In my initial response, my opening line was simply a way of introducing the common concept witnessed to anyone that drives a car. "if you don't understand it..." seemed a completely fair way of starting this, given in your post I was replying to you admitted to "I can't get my head around this", thus you didn't understand it. It isn't an offense to not understand everything, so I didn't think I was being offensive by saying what you had already told us. There was not one iota of me trying to be patronising. However, you seem to have been oversensitive, and then decided to tell the world you couldn't be bothered reading the rest because of your assumption that it was "undoubtedly patronising crap". Had you actually read it, you would have realised your assumption was incorrect.

Hence, if you have that sort of attitude frequently when someone tries to explain something, then it is clearly going to be a barrier to you learning all sorts of things.

 

[Tashyboy]

That one has just made me laugh. An approach to a par 4 or 5, no one says a thing, on a par 3, it's a common conversation. Why is that?

Probably coz four sat nav’s or watches say anything from 150-180 to the middle.

 

[cliveb]

That's a good one I've not seen mentioned yet. The old "I can't see it anywhere so it must have gone in the lake". Although I still think 'virtually certain' is a bit of a wishy washy phrase to have in a rulebook and creates a bit of a grey area.

You've been playing the 8th at Grims Dyke too much

Lost count of how many times I pointed out that it could be outside the pond, but it regularly fell on deaf ears.