New Rules - what are you for and against?

[2blue]

Surely if you play ready golf it must do, especially if you are playing a two ball ? Partner chips out of a bunker close to hole, and you are on the green 50 feet away. You can putt up without having to wait for partner to, rake bunker, faff around getting trolley round to right place, get putter out etc. You can even start looking at your watch to put partner under pressure.

If one of my regular partners, or Phil asks for pin to be attended from 50 feet, I will tell him where it can put the pin.

Correct... with ready golf & pin in, it's much, much quicker as well as being far more fluid always around. It means you can encourage inept playing partners to take their bag/trolley around to the green exit without them feeling they're holding you up on the green.

 

[Homer]

The best player in a 4-ball will always walk the furthest.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Its maybe time that I actually had a look to see what the rule changes are....

Not been bothered to read anything as yet but like any previous change it is what it is.

Guaranteed the average member will be oblivious to most of them when they come in as they don't have a clue about the majority of the existing rules.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

I like the fact that us hackers can deal with a lost ball by dropping one and taking two penalty shots, rather than going back and retaking the shot with a one shot penalty. But they didn’t address what I see as an anomaly; a ball lost in water is a one shot penalty, whereas a ball lost in the rough is a two shot penalty ... both are equally lost and both result from a wayward shot. What’s the difference? However, on balance, I like the changes.

 

[jim8flog]

I like the fact that us hackers can deal with a lost ball by dropping one and taking two penalty shots, rather than going back and retaking the shot with a one shot penalty. .

Only if there is a local rule which allows it and judging by this forum there are very few clubs that are going to have the local rule.

 

[rulefan]

I like the fact that us hackers can deal with a lost ball by dropping one and taking two penalty shots, rather than going back and retaking the shot with a one shot penalty. But they didn’t address what I see as an anomaly; a ball lost in water is a one shot penalty, whereas a ball lost in the rough is a two shot penalty ... both are equally lost and both result from a wayward shot. What’s the difference? However, on balance, I like the changes.

The main difference is where you may take relief. Two stokes could buy you a nicer position.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

Only if there is a local rule which allows it and judging by this forum there are very few clubs that are going to have the local rule.

Not sure yet what our club is doing for comps, but my friends and I will certainly use it to speed up social games.

 

[chrisd]

Not sure yet what our club is doing for comps, but my friends and I will certainly use it to speed up social games.

Your club can't use it in comps otherwise they will not be qualifying under Congu rules, nor will supplementary cards.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

OK ... thanks for that. That’s interesting. The R and A specifically stated that “The Local Rule is not intended for higher levels of play, such as professional or elite level competitions”. Given that our seniors competitions are far from elite 😂, can’t the local rule be used? As I say, I’m not yet aware what my club is doing on this.

 

[Imurg]

CONGU have come out against it so as far as qualifiers go it can't be used.
But in a non qualifier there's no reason your "group" can't use it.
Gimmes are a regular diversion from "proper" rules in social golf groups.

 

[bobmac]

CONGU have come out against it so as far as qualifiers go it can't be used.

So CONGU are over-ruling the R&A

 

[Imurg]

Well, R&A don't have much to do with handicapping, they're more interested in the actual rules whereas the administration of handicaps is more a thing for CONGU.
So if CONGU decided, for instance, that they weren't happy with the flag being left in for putting I'm guessing they could do the same thing and prevent handicaps being decided by its use.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Well, R&A don't have much to do with handicapping, they're more interested in the actual rules whereas the administration of handicaps is more a thing for CONGU.
So if CONGU decided, for instance, that they weren't happy with the flag being left in for putting I'm guessing they could do the same thing and prevent handicaps being decided by its use.

I don’t think CONGU can, the difference with the oob/lost ball rule, is that it’s an optional local rule.
The flagstick left in choice is a Rule of Golf.

 

[Imurg]

I don’t think CONGU can, the difference with the oob/lost ball rule, is that it’s an optional local rule.
The flagstick left in choice is a Rule of Golf.

Good point and that'll be CONGU's get out clause....

 

[Deleted member 23344]

The R & A stated that the option of a local rule was introduced to address pace of play issues, which seems a laudable aim. However, if CONGU has taken steps to prevent its use, then an initiative designed to speed up play has been thwarted. Seems a pity ... particularly when the R & A specified that it couldn’t be used at professional or elite level; i.e. it was considered appropriate at lower levels. A missed opportunity.

 

[duncan mackie]

The R & A stated that the option of a local rule was introduced to address pace of play issues, which seems a laudable aim. However, if CONGU has taken steps to prevent its use, then an initiative designed to speed up play has been thwarted. Seems a pity ... particularly when the R & A specified that it couldn’t be used at professional or elite level; i.e. it was considered appropriate at lower levels. A missed opportunity.

The R and A haven't specified that couldn't be used at elite level at all.

 

[bobmac]

The R & A stated that the option of a local rule was introduced to address pace of play issues, which seems a laudable aim. However, if CONGU has taken steps to prevent its use, then an initiative designed to speed up play has been thwarted. Seems a pity ... particularly when the R & A specified that it couldn’t be used at professional or elite level; i.e. it was considered appropriate at lower levels. A missed opportunity.

Exactly.
Congu placing themselves above the R&A when it comes to telling us what we can and can't do in comps

 

[bobmac]

The R and A haven't specified that couldn't be used at elite level at all.

Well, it does say
''The Local Rule is not intended for higher levels of play, such as professional or elite level competitions.''

 

[Imurg]

When the WHS comes in and the rest of the world uses this local rule, will CONGU ( or whoever is in charge) have to agree to have it available?
It would be strange if there are, effectively, 2 sets of handicapping rules when the idea is to get everyone under the same umbrella.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

When the WHS comes in and the rest of the world uses this local rule, will CONGU ( or whoever is in charge) have to agree to have it available?
It would be strange if there are, effectively, 2 sets of handicapping rules when the idea is to get everyone under the same umbrella.

This question was asked at an England Golf rules seminar I attended.
England Golf stated CONGU were monitoring their decision over the next 12 months and will then review it.