New Local Rules

mm...means I'm going to have to edit the presentation I'm writing for my clubs members...hopefully some public clarity will be available by the time I attend our local 2019 Rules presentation later in November.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I’m fully behind Congu on this - why should you be able to drop when the ball is lost or OB - if there is any doubt the simple method is then to play a provisional , the rule was a cop out for me. We have seen people put a provisional OB as well so they are off the tee for 5 - in this rule you get that cop.

It was the one rule that didn’t seem right and was a step to making the game easier - can’t sanitize the game too much

If social or society golf want to play it then they could anyway if they wish
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing the write or wrong of the LR. My particular issue is with the fact that a LR has been made available and CONGU appears to be making a decision based on ----- what.

As an aside, we have been doing exactly this for years in our society.
 
pauldj42 said:
The Chairman of England Golf was there last night, Desmond somebody (can’t remember his surname) and he stated quite categorically after a few questions back and forwards that the decision has been made and they are just waiting publication.
Maybe he sees the CONGU Board approval as a done deal.
I can only tell you what all Clubs in Durham and Northumberland were told last night.
Click to expand...

Well, as I reported, the advice to be given to clubs has still to be approved by the CONGU Board (and its Technical Committee). It seems England Golf is jumping the gun a bit but I don't doubt it's going to happen. I'm certainly not, however, going to advise my club or make decisions until it is finally ratified.
 
Last edited:
Colin L said:
Well, as I reported, the advice to be given to clubs has still to be approved by the CONGU Board (and its Technical Committee). It seems England Golf is jumping the gun a bit but I don't doubt it's going to happen. I'm certainly not, however, going to advise my club or make decisions until it is finally ratified.
Click to expand...
The unfortunate consequence of this is that at exactly the moment nearly every golfer in the UK is, essentially, mentally relying on both the R&A and CONGU with regard to the wholesale rule changes and WHS, it rather looks like a complete mess (I'm not suggesting it is a mess; but it must look like one to have uncertainty like this at this stage)
 
pauldj42 said:
The Chairman of England Golf was there last night, Desmond somebody (can’t remember his surname) and he stated quite categorically after a few questions back and forwards that the decision has been made and they are just waiting publication.
Maybe he sees the CONGU Board approval as a done deal.
I can only tell you what all Clubs in Durham and Northumberland were told last night.
Click to expand...
Desmond Duffy. He is the President of England Golf.

I was in fact unable to get a definitive response from the EG presenter other than to confirm that it would render a comp to be a nq.
The presenter (he/she is not on the handicapping committee but is a rules person) thought it would make a small contribution to PoP but not to handicap scoring because of the net double bogey limit. The people who could have given more info were not present.
 
rulefan said:
Desmond Duffy. He is the President of England Golf.

I was in fact unable to get a definitive response from the EG presenter other than to confirm that it would render a comp to be a nq.
The presenter (he/she is not on the handicapping committee but is a rules person) thought it would make a small contribution to PoP but not to handicap scoring because of the net double bogey limit. The people who could have given more info were not present.
Click to expand...
What did you think of the overall presentation?
 
Desmond was (is) a very highly regarded rules instructor and referee. I don't think he is very active in those roles so much now.
 
rulefan said:
Desmond was (is) a very highly regarded rules instructor and referee. I don't think he is very active in those roles so much now.
Click to expand...
He was introduced to us at the beginning of the night, the lead speaker then referred a couple of queries to him, whether that was planned I don’t know.
Presentation was quite slick last night.
 
Colin L said:
Just one question: why should you be able to go back to where you played your last stroke and drop when your ball is lost or OB?
Click to expand...

How about; because you failed to put/keep a ball in play with your stroke, and so should be allowed a further (penalised) attempt to do so (otherwise ones round is suddenly at an incomplete end).

Yes, the new LR does the same, but as I've opined before, the sequence of (say) tee shot + oob + 2shot drop onto the fairway (in order to be ready to play your 4th shot) is a far easier option than going back to the tee (or playing a provisional) to attempt to play a third shot to (roughly) an equivalent place. I think many people share my view that the LR is too great a simplification of the game.
 
backwoodsman said:
How about; because you failed to put/keep a ball in play with your stroke, and so should be allowed a further (penalised) attempt to do so (otherwise ones round is suddenly at an incomplete end).

Yes, the new LR does the same, but as I've opined before, the sequence of (say) tee shot + oob + 2shot drop onto the fairway (in order to be ready to play your 4th shot) is a far easier option than going back to the tee (or playing a provisional) to attempt to play a third shot to (roughly) an equivalent place. I think many people share my view that the LR is too great a simplification of the game.
Click to expand...
The LR will not necessarily get you to where you intended to be. You will almost certainly lose distance and possibly line of sight. No better than a pretty conservative provisional.
 
backwoodsman said:
How about; because you failed to put/keep a ball in play with your stroke, and so should be allowed a further (penalised) attempt to do so (otherwise ones round is suddenly at an incomplete end).

Yes, the new LR does the same, but as I've opined before, the sequence of (say) tee shot + oob + 2shot drop onto the fairway (in order to be ready to play your 4th shot) is a far easier option than going back to the tee (or playing a provisional) to attempt to play a third shot to (roughly) an equivalent place. I think many people share my view that the LR is too great a simplification of the game.
Click to expand...

It's good that you are not objecting to the principle of being allowed in some way to continue with your game despite having lost your ball or hit it off the course. Stroke and distance and the new Local Rule have the same purpose and differ only in method and cost. I have heard people explode in moral outrage at the perceived affront to the virtue of the game as if it were being violated in some way not to be mentioned in a family forum

The difference in cost is too variable to say that the Local Rule is necessarily always advantageous. A provisional that takes you to 100 yards from the green is less expensive than a drop on the fairway 200 yards from the green; a drop on the fairway no matter the distance from the green is less expensive than putting your provisional out of bounds. Every player has a choice every time their ball goes out of bounds or they think it might me lost and each would be wise to consider the choice each time the occasion arose. The certainty of playing from the fairway by using the Local Rule over the fear of losing your provisional ball or putting it out of bounds will be a strong influence on the choices made. but as the choice is the same for everyone, it is, of course, a fair one.

Too great a simplification? When does the value of simplification move from positive to negative and why? A factor I don't often see or hear in discussions of this matter is that the Local Rule should make golf for many - a majority at a guess - more enjoyable. I do hear the opposite from some members of my club who seem to think that the nerve-wracking business of playing a provisional should be protected because it is an immutable tenet of the game that we suffer.

Alll of which is an argument about the Local Rule which is not quite what the discussion was turning to. Quite simply, making the Rules is the business of the R&A/USGA not CONGU and unless CONGU can convince me that it has a carefully worked out projection that shows that a variable adoption of the Local Rule would cause significant inconsistencies in handicapping, it has no right to block its use by its member clubs. But I'll have to wait to find out its reasoning.
 
Why didn’t they make it a rule of golf then instead of just a LR to be used for club golfers ?

If the “advantage” is not that much why not allow the Pro’s to use it ?

If the R&A and USGA are the only ones allowed to make the rules then why not just have it as a RoG in the same way as stroke and distance ?

That way Congu can’t deem it a NQ if used

If your ball is OB - provisional , if there is a possiblity of it going to be lost - provisional

If not then walk back to the tee and if there are people waiting then let them through - all the actions for a LB or OB are there already - if they want to change it then change the RoG , don’t bottle it and go with the safe soft option of a LR that isn’t compulsory- most clubs will always opt out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Team open competitions
Replies
3
Views
618
Swango1980
S
H
Competitive vs Recreational handicaps
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
G
Seniors Golf Committee
Replies
1
Views
429
jim8flog
jim8flog
S
4BBB Qualifying Scores
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
6K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
VVega
Competition draws
Replies
4
Views
885
wjemather
wjemather
Top