Strange local rule

[CliveW]

I don't have a clue what the loft of my clubs are, so how are you supposed to know what to play?

On the subject of the proximity of fairways, my first club shared a common fairway with the first and second holes, so you had players playing in opposite directions on the same fairway.

 

[Foxholer]

On the subject of the proximity of fairways, my first club shared a common fairway with the first and second holes, so you had players playing in opposite directions on the same fairway.

There's a rather famous one up your way that has a few 'shared' fairways!

I've seen internal OB used to, hopefully, deter certain shot directions. During tournaments and certain interclub matches the IOB is removed, though there I've heard of a spotter being used for H&S.

Another example of 'Committees' being understandably cautious, but insufficiently informed of what they can/can't do.

 

[JezzE]

A stupid rule developed by people who think they can write any rule they like. Which they can't.

So if I hit my 5 wood, can I put my hands forward and deloft it?

Can I use my 16.5 degree wood which is adjustable to more than 17 degrees?

Did they know that Ping often exaggerate the loft of clubs so that one marked 16 degrees may be 18? Is that allowed?

There are players who can slice the bejasus out of a 7 iron, let alone a driver. A rule attempting to limit this is really really silly. I would also like to see the rule of golf that allows them to apply a penalty to any offender. They can say that gentleman must dress to the left (don't ask) after 7.30 on Tuesdays in the clubhouse if they like. That is not covered by the rules of golf.

I usually agree with you Ethan, but have to say I think you've gone off on one here!

At the end of the day, what's more important, your right to hit a driver (or massively delofted 5-wood) along a piece of grass, or an adjoining neighbour's right not to have golf balls sprayed into their garden night and day (or onto an adjacent fairway in the case of the OP's comments I guess)?

Not sure you'd feel particularly good if you ignored the 'rule', sprayed one miles right or left on a hole, cracked someone in the temple and then tried to plead you had a divine right to hit driver? Common-sense must surely prevail.

And as you well know, the lower the loft the more sidespin you produce, hence the need for the occasional restriction.

Just my opinion of course...

 

[Ethan]

I usually agree with you Ethan, but have to say I think you've gone off on one here!

At the end of the day, what's more important, your right to hit a driver (or massively delofted 5-wood) along a piece of grass, or an adjoining neighbour's right not to have golf balls sprayed into their garden night and day (or onto an adjacent fairway in the case of the OP's comments I guess)?

Not sure you'd feel particularly good if you ignored the 'rule', sprayed one miles right or left on a hole, cracked someone in the temple and then tried to plead you had a divine right to hit driver? Common-sense must surely prevail.

And as you well know, the lower the loft the more sidespin you produce, hence the need for the occasional restriction.

Just my opinion of course...

Jezz

Haven't you been paying attention? I go off on one quite often!

The issue here is that the Rules of Golf do not allow such a local rule, and even if they did, it is a very heavy handed way to achieve the intent.

It stops an older player who hits a driver 180 yards from hitting it but allows a young buck who can hit their 4 wood 240 yards to do so? Isn't that giving an unfair advantage to the younger stronger player?

Maybe the rule should be more specific -, for example: slicers can't hit more than a 5 wood, but hookers can hit what they like (reversed for lefties)! (If the neighbour's house is on the right).

 

[duncan mackie]

I usually agree with you Ethan, but have to say I think you've gone off on one here!

At the end of the day, what's more important, your right to hit a driver (or massively delofted 5-wood) along a piece of grass, or an adjoining neighbour's right not to have golf balls sprayed into their garden night and day (or onto an adjacent fairway in the case of the OP's comments I guess)?

Not sure you'd feel particularly good if you ignored the 'rule', sprayed one miles right or left on a hole, cracked someone in the temple and then tried to plead you had a divine right to hit driver? Common-sense must surely prevail.

And as you well know, the lower the loft the more sidespin you produce, hence the need for the occasional restriction.

Just my opinion of course...

Jezz - I think you are saying the same thing as Ethan, but from a different perspective.

firstly there's the small matter of the club not officially being able to implement such a LR, as discussed already - and as we have both said that doesn't stop it happening.

specifically related to safety, Ethan (and I agree) is simply highlighting that either a restriction to irons only, as was, or to clubs with 17 degrees of loft or more, is not an appropriate measure to ensure safety in such situations.

in this specific case I believe the course has been in place for over 100 years - so they have had some time to deal with the situation properly. Having looked at the layout I have to say that there appears to be as much, if not more, danger inherent in the tee shots from 11 to the other green about 40yds short left of the 11th green, as well as another pair of greens.

far better than the LR would be the influencing of play from the tee through hazard placement, or even OOB all along the right side, plus a nice visual bunker arrangement to emphasise the threats associated with risking shots in that direction!

 

[JezzE]

Jezz - I think you are saying the same thing as Ethan, but from a different perspective.

firstly there's the small matter of the club not officially being able to implement such a LR, as discussed already - and as we have both said that doesn't stop it happening.

specifically related to safety, Ethan (and I agree) is simply highlighting that either a restriction to irons only, as was, or to clubs with 17 degrees of loft or more, is not an appropriate measure to ensure safety in such situations.

in this specific case I believe the course has been in place for over 100 years - so they have had some time to deal with the situation properly. Having looked at the layout I have to say that there appears to be as much, if not more, danger inherent in the tee shots from 11 to the other green about 40yds short left of the 11th green, as well as another pair of greens.

far better than the LR would be the influencing of play from the tee through hazard placement, or even OOB all along the right side, plus a nice visual bunker arrangement to emphasise the threats associated with risking shots in that direction!

Duncan, I understand what both you and Ethan are saying from a Local Rules perspective and the letter of the law. But I do just feel that sometimes we as golfers think we have some kind of God-given right to spray our golf balls anywhere and if it happens to endanger someone else then so be it... we were only trying to enjoy our game of golf and didn't mean to knock it into your garden and land perilously close to where your 4-year-old was playing.

Surely we need to get a bit of perspective here. I agree, the club has gone down the Local Rule route which is clearly not the correct procedure within the Rules of the game, but the intention is to make the golfing experience a little bit safer for everyone. If you stood there and fired any other kind of missile into someone's garden, or at people a couple of hundred yard away, you'd rightly be in spot of bother and to me, the fact that you're playing golf and didn't mean to do it doesn't really exonerate you in the overall scheme of things. There were some rather worrying comments in the 'should Rory have shouted 'fore!'' thread for my liking too!

I have played at courses that have done as you suggest here - Willingdon at Eastbourne in Sussex for example where one par five had to be routed a little further right by judicious grass cutting to 'encourage' golfers not to attack the hole, thus endangering people in adjoining gardens down the left.

I have also played at a club in South Wales where the first green had to be repositioned because the original green was too close to a school playground. As a father, I know what I'd prefer - a small sacrifice on one hole to know that where my son was playing in the school playground would no longer be in the firing line of haplessly inaccurate golfers!

All I'm really saying is that sometimes common-sense should prevail over the letter of the law!

Here endeth my midnight sermon...

 

[duncan mackie]

All I'm really saying is that sometimes common-sense should prevail over the letter of the law!

Here endeth my midnight sermon...

I'm not sure what I said that could be construed to disagree with anything other than your last point?

If anything I would view such safety aspects as more important than any 'protection' that some of these LRs give - this is the crux of my point, highlighted by the comments Ethan makes about the varied distance capabilities etc

Equally I wouldn't suggest that simply making an area OOB will prevent any balls arriving there!

There are a large number of options open to courses, some of which you have outlined, and if anything the underlying issue is with clubs that (1) recognise a severe risk such as with the holes discussed here and (2) fail to take appropriate safety steps - effectively paying lip service to the situation with 'a rule'.

Now, this then brings us to the sentence I have copied above - for the average golfer arriving on that tee they will not use common sense because someone has effectively told them what's 'safe'; not dissimilar to the situation the world has got itself into with 'warning notices' etc So we end up with the worst of both worlds IMO.

In this case it cry's out for a mixture of mental (OOB) visual (bunker faces similar to those introduced on the left of the 18th Wentworth - but now changed) and physical barriers both at the launch area (accepting that this may have limited benefits here) and in the danger area. However, you will get reactions such as we can't change the famous layout, that would affect the play of the hole, we can't plant Leylandii on this course they would look out of place etc etc

So my sermon would conclude that true safety needs to be supported by the rules and override other sensitivities in the design and management of golf courses.

 

[USER1999]

we can't plant Leylandii on this course they would look out of place etc etc

A lot of people who have bought a house with glorious views of the countryside (or from our point of view, a golf course), might have something to say if the golf course suddenly planted Leylandii at the end of their garden, blocking both the view and the light. Similarly the additon of a 60ft fence.

May be some of these avenues were explored before the introduction of the LR?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The 4th hole at Troon Darley was shortened quite considerably due to a Primary School starting to get a few hits.

Householder have pretty strong rights when they can prove damage and danger from golf balls.

I know of one couple who bought their dream cottage near the car park of a golf club.
They did not realise that they would be woken most mornings at 6am with greens mowers wizzing about and golfers shouts of 'hello Fred , how are you this lovely morning'.
Plus the drunken ramblings of golfers going home at midnight.

 

[duncan mackie]

A lot of people who have bought a house with glorious views of the countryside (or from our point of view, a golf course), might have something to say if the golf course suddenly planted Leylandii at the end of their garden, blocking both the view and the light. Similarly the additon of a 60ft fence.

May be some of these avenues were explored before the introduction of the LR?

there's no house or property involved with this situation Murph, it's been presented as an internal safety issue with a par 3 coming back along the right hand side of the hole in play - already separated by a significant barrier of mature trees but obviously not considered a suitable barrier.

adjoining property issues are another thing entirely - let's not get into that one because any answer doesn't lie within the control of a single party (the golf club).

 

[North Mimms]

there's no house or property involved with this situation Murph, it's been presented as an internal safety issue with a par 3 coming back along the right hand side of the hole in play - already separated by a significant barrier of mature trees but obviously not considered a suitable barrier.

adjoining property issues are another thing entirely - let's not get into that one because any answer doesn't lie within the control of a single party (the golf club).

My home course is "compact" to say the least.
Playing from the wrong fairway happens a lot.

You just get good at yelling Fore and even better at turning your back and covering your head