New 2019 rules

[duncan mackie]

May I be so bold as to highlight a huge positive to this particular change that has, as far as I can see, been completely overlooked.

One of the biggest issue in the implementation ofnthe rules as they are relates to water hazards and lost balls. When is a ball 'lost' in the hazard and when is it lost is a huge repetitive discussion everywhere.
At a stroke this goes! Well, at least any argument can occur in the area the ball was last believed to be, and dealt with there.
In practice, given the layout of most courses and water hazards, any argument may now be that the ball isn't in the hazard but lost outside it! ie a complete reversal.

Just raising it for further discussion :whoo:

 

[Old Skier]

The only reason that it is a local rule is so the pros can opt out. If it wasn't for that, it would be a substantive rule.

Still fail to understand why if this is such a great idea for speeding up play it's not in the rules and the pros arnt made to adopt it or do the powers to be feel they are above the need.

IMO, if it's not good enough for the pros then it's not something others should adopt.

 

[rulefan]

Still fail to understand why if this is such a great idea for speeding up play it's not in the rules and the pros arnt made to adopt it or do the powers to be feel they are above the need.

IMO, if it's not good enough for the pros then it's not something others should adopt.

It just isn't necessary for the pros. The are generally straighter. They rarely hit OB and even more rarely hit a poor provisional. In addition, they have galleries that find errant balls for them.

 

[rulie]

It just isn't necessary for the pros. The are generally straighter. They rarely hit OB and even more rarely hit a poor provisional. In addition, they have galleries that find errant balls for them.

Imo, use of this local Rule is for recreational or social golf only. I'm certain that my club will not use it for any serious competitions (club championships, opens etc).

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Still fail to understand why if this is such a great idea for speeding up play it's not in the rules and the pros arnt made to adopt it or do the powers to be feel they are above the need.

IMO, if it's not good enough for the pros then it's not something others should adopt.

Can you imagin the time the pros would take to decide on the vicinity of the ball in trouble. Every one would call for a referee followed by a lengthy discussion. Faster to hit a provisional or 3 off the tee.

 

[rosecott]

Imo, use of this local Rule is for recreational or social golf only. I'm certain that my club will not use it for any serious competitions (club championships, opens etc).

Can a LR apply to only one type of play?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Can a LR apply to only one type of play?

They certainly can be made specific to a competition and as these inevitably are one type of play then yes.

Normally they wouldn't apply to (say) only stableford competitions.

 

[rulie]

Can a LR apply to only one type of play?

Sure, you just write a notice to competitors for each competition and list the local Rules that are in effect for that competition, or create a specific set of local Rules that are in effect for all competitions the Committee runs on that course.
We usually start our notice to competitors with "The local Rules on the scorecard and/or posted in the clubhouse/golf shop" are not applicable for this competition." Then we list the local Rules which are in effect. Then expect that competitors will read the notice!

 

[backwoodsman]

I always understood the purpose of this major rules change was to a) make the rules easier to understand and b) to help speed play. I do not believe their purpose was to make the game easier - which the new Lost/OOB rule does. I guess l could just about accept it, it limited the relief area to the close proximity of the lost ball and did not include the guaranteed provision of dropping on a fairway.

As an aside, a conversation in the clubhouse today (while we watched the snow deepen on the fairways) suggested that the new Lost/OOB rule was not likely to find favour amongst our membership. The general changes, yes, but this particular one, no.

 

[Old Skier]

General feeling in our clubhouse today as well. I wonder who was consulted with. Not ýour everyday golfer I suspect.

 

[fundy]

I always understood the purpose of this major rules change was to a) make the rules easier to understand and b) to help speed play. I do not believe their purpose was to make the game easier - which the new Lost/OOB rule does. I guess l could just about accept it, it limited the relief area to the close proximity of the lost ball and did not include the guaranteed provision of dropping on a fairway.

As an aside, a conversation in the clubhouse today (while we watched the snow deepen on the fairways) suggested that the new Lost/OOB rule was not likely to find favour amongst our membership. The general changes, yes, but this particular one, no.

its hardly going to make the rules easier to understand when some implement it fully, some for non comps only, one on here even wants it on some holes only

either make a rule or dont ffs, an optional rule (which is basically what this is) is just going to cause more confusion

 

[Old Skier]

its hardly going to make the rules easier to understand when some implement it fully, some for non comps only, one on here even wants it on some holes only

either make a rule or dont ffs, an optional rule (which is basically what this is) is just going to cause more confusion

Agree, poorly thought out with no real justification. IMO

 

[rulie]

its hardly going to make the rules easier to understand when some implement it fully, some for non comps only, one on here even wants it on some holes only

either make a rule or dont ffs, an optional rule (which is basically what this is) is just going to cause more confusion

Do you realize that there are nearly 40 local Rules available as options for Committees to implement or not implement? That's why they're called "local Rules", the local Committee gets to decide whether or not to use them on their course or for their competitions.

 

[KenL]

I wish there was a new rule that allowed you to place the ball (rather than dropping) in a bunker when taking relief when needing to take a drop from water in the bunker. So unfair as it is.

 

[Colin L]

I wish there was a new rule that allowed you to place the ball (rather than dropping) in a bunker when taking relief when needing to take a drop from water in the bunker. So unfair as it is.

Bear in mind you'll only be dropping from knee height.

 

[rulie]

I wish there was a new rule that allowed you to place the ball (rather than dropping) in a bunker when taking relief when needing to take a drop from water in the bunker. So unfair as it is.

My experience is that balls don't plug when dropping in wet bunkers.

 

[KenL]

My experience is that balls don't plug when dropping in wet bunkers.

My pal had to drop in a bunker at Eyemouth Open last weekend. It plugged to about the equator of the ball.

I

 

[Colin L]

My pal had to drop in a bunker at Eyemouth Open last weekend. It plugged to about the equator of the ball.

I

As above. Much less likely from knee height.

 

[KenL]

As above. Much less likely from knee height.

Less likely perhaps but still totally unfair.

 

[rulie]

Less likely perhaps but still totally unfair.

If everyone has to do it that way, it's fair - the Rules establish what is fair.