Tom Murray - You Plonker!

Sweep

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,476
Visit site
Sadly it seems all you have are insults. When you're ready for intelligent debate then drop me a line. Otherwise if all you can do is call me a troll or thick or whatever then don't bother
Good grief. Did you even read the forensic explanation I gave? If not, it explains everything and shows that you are only here to cause arguments. If you did read it, you cannot say that all I have are insults.
Now, I am sure this is just boring for everyone else so how about we just leave it?
 

Junior

Tour Winner
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
5,024
Visit site
I saw his tweet and was gutted for him. He also missed out on his card via the top 15 on the challenge tour by a few hundred Euro, finishing 16.

His family have strong ties to my club and his dad Andrew (European tour winner and 5 live commentator) does fantastic work with our juniors. I've been fortunate enough to play with Tom and his brother Matt who's at college in the USA. They are both really great, down to earth guys and I've no doubt Tom will get there again. His attitude is superb.
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
Read the rule and let us know if you are still lost.
Now, you keep telling me to let it go, but you keep bringing it back up again with me and others. And now you are still talking about it on another thread about a different rule infringement. I’d say people have been pretty patient with you. But it seems you are intent on becoming the Keyboard Warrior Champ or maybe you just like trolling. Maybe you don’t understand or more likely don’t want to understand what some are saying to you, as it seems some have to explain things to you over and over again.
Anyway, for the last time. The bunker ruling was entirely different. As some of the rules experts have said in here and in the Rules section, to come to the bunker ruling you have to trawl through the Decisions book and to be fair, even then, the ruling is a bit spurious. Now, I don’t expect you to explain, because making a positive contribution is not why you are here, but you haven’t explained why, according to the Decision, smoothing a bunker 5 yards in front of you, 150 yards from the green should not punishable for improving your line, but according to this ruling, doing so greenside is.
There is also the point that in the absence of an explanation of the ruling none of us know how the ruling was arrived at. If we are not told, how can we ensure we don’t make the same infringement? None of us want to break the rules.
Now, compare that to completing your scorecard incorrectly. We all know we are responsible for recording our gross score on each hole. It’s a basic, fundamental rule that is central to deciding the winner. No need to delve into the Decisions book. No need for an explanation on the ruling. If someone records their score wrongly it’s pretty obvious they have broken a fundamental rule. A DQ is fair. It’s provable, it’s in black and white, it irrefutable. There are no grey areas like how far off line is still on your line, no disputes about how far said bunker is away from the green, no sense of unfairness for being punished for tending to a bunker you didn’t go in. In this particular instance the total number just happened to add up to the correct total. A rare occurrence I would say. An advantage could be gained (albeit not in this case) if using a countback method. So, as you can see, in the case of the incorrectly recorded score, there is no need to implement “my” no advantage rule.

In the bunker case, by suggesting a compromise by imposing a penalty if an advantage was gained was an attempt by some to find a way to make the rule and the game fairer. Now please explain what is wrong with that intention? What is so wrong with discussing how a rule could be seen as unfair, how it could be made better and how we can avoid making the same infringement? What is it about all this that upsets you? All we get from you is the rule is right and you are thick if you don’t understand.

Now, it has all been explained to you, yet again. You may not agree. You may want to keep on your winding up mission. You may wish to keep trolling or acting thick. Whatever. I don’t care. I will happily chat or debate if you want to make a positive contribution to this thread or others and I would welcome it. But until then, I am not interested.

Not sure about "spurious"; but I'm sure you will appreciate that 13-2/29 has not only been retained in the new rules but has it's own section (8.1.d.(2)).
 

Sweep

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,476
Visit site
Not sure about "spurious"; but I'm sure you will appreciate that 13-2/29 has not only been retained in the new rules but has it's own section (8.1.d.(2)).
Interesting that the definition of line of play has changed.
To be honest, I don’t think the new rule is any clearer than the old rule is this particular regard and I wouldn’t have expected it to be removed from the new rules. The rule itself is good. The application in this case is what’s in question as the Decisions on the rule seem at odds with one another.

I assume Decisions 13-2 /0.5 and 13-2/29 still stand when the new rules come into force? I assume with new Decision numbers to match the rule numbers they refer to and with new terminology?
Decision 13-2/0.5 says that “merely changing an area protected by rule 13.2 will not be a breach of rule 13.2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play. Examples of changes that are UNLIKELY to create such a potential advantage are if a player..... smooths a footprint in a bunker 5 yards in front of him on his line of play prior to making a 150 yard approach shot from through the green.”
In other words, the player should not be penalised because no advantage was created by his action.
So maybe those calls by some on here for no breach unless an advantage was gained we’re not too far fetched after all.
The Decision ends by stating
“The determination as to whether a player has created a potential advantage by his actions is made by reference to all the circumstances immediately prior to his stroke”.
This could be construed as saying if he didn’t intend to play into the bunker - just as he wouldn’t from 150 yards out (as covered in the Decision) and indeed as he didn’t play the ball into the bunker, then no such advantage was created.
I’d say that makes the application of this ruling (not the rule itself) pretty spurious.
And then you get Decision 13-2/29 which as you say clearly outlaws what the player did in this case, but as far as I can see the only difference is because the bunker is green side and not 150 yards out. Other than that these two decisions seem to clash. It’s even worse if you look at Decision 13-2/29.3 which allows you to nip into the greenside bunker to retrieve your ball if it goes in when say, taking a drop and smooth the bunker on your line with no penalty. Indeed it says you are ENTITLED to restore the bunker to the condition it was before you entered it. Hmmm...
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
Interesting that the definition of line of play has changed.
To be honest, I don’t think the new rule is any clearer than the old rule is this particular regard and I wouldn’t have expected it to be removed from the new rules. The rule itself is good. The application in this case is what’s in question as the Decisions on the rule seem at odds with one another.

I assume Decisions 13-2 /0.5 and 13-2/29 still stand when the new rules come into force? I assume with new Decision numbers to match the rule numbers they refer to and with new terminology?
Decision 13-2/0.5 says that “merely changing an area protected by rule 13.2 will not be a breach of rule 13.2 unless it creates such a potential advantage for the player in his play. Examples of changes that are UNLIKELY to create such a potential advantage are if a player..... smooths a footprint in a bunker 5 yards in front of him on his line of play prior to making a 150 yard approach shot from through the green.”
In other words, the player should not be penalised because no advantage was created by his action.
So maybe those calls by some on here for no breach unless an advantage was gained we’re not too far fetched after all.
The Decision ends by stating
“The determination as to whether a player has created a potential advantage by his actions is made by reference to all the circumstances immediately prior to his stroke”.
This could be construed as saying if he didn’t intend to play into the bunker - just as he wouldn’t from 150 yards out (as covered in the Decision) and indeed as he didn’t play the ball into the bunker, then no such advantage was created.
I’d say that makes the application of this ruling (not the rule itself) pretty spurious.
And then you get Decision 13-2/29 which as you say clearly outlaws what the player did in this case, but as far as I can see the only difference is because the bunker is green side and not 150 yards out. Other than that these two decisions seem to clash. It’s even worse if you look at Decision 13-2/29.3 which allows you to nip into the greenside bunker to retrieve your ball if it goes in when say, taking a drop and smooth the bunker on your line with no penalty. Indeed it says you are ENTITLED to restore the bunker to the condition it was before you entered it. Hmmm...

It's really not that complicated here.

For nearly every rule there are exceptions - especially where the rules require you to take a course of action. Every exception is almost defacto a "clash".

The basic principle and guidance on application you quote is irrelevant because the player created the worsened condition, and is not permitted to improve, or return to condition - full stop. Hence the penalty in this particular situation. The position of the bunker i in the example given is irrelevant.
As the rules require you to recover your ball and continue play with it they also permit you to restore the line as an exception in such situations. Makes sense to me...
 

shortgame

Tour Rookie
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,584
Visit site
Feel for the lad. A q-school boy error 😐


Probably unknowingly done the same, gross / nett scores / points add up = signed card.

However, cards we think are in with a chance of winning get checked in detail before signing...
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
26,702
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
Been thinking about this. At pro events a marker goes around with them. Was the discrepancy found because the marker had a different score? If so why do the pro's not go through the card with the marker after each round to check that they match? 20 second job.

I get that having the same end score may have messed the brain cells up on this one but it would be a way of avoiding score discrepancies.
 

Canfordhacker

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,090
Location
Dorset
Visit site
So if in a Stableford comp at your club somebody had two scores the wrong way round and won on a countaback as a result that's OK too? I'm with the "this is a basic error" group.
 

Garush34

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,226
Location
Scottish Borders
Visit site
Been thinking about this. At pro events a marker goes around with them. Was the discrepancy found because the marker had a different score? If so why do the pro's not go through the card with the marker after each round to check that they match? 20 second job.

I get that having the same end score may have messed the brain cells up on this one but it would be a way of avoiding score discrepancies.

Not sure if every group would have a marker at q school, certainly not over the first few days. The scores were only being updated every 3 holes over the first 4 days which makes me think that there was someone every 3 holes reporting scores. Someone else might be better informed to answer though?
 

Sweep

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,476
Visit site
It's really not that complicated here.

For nearly every rule there are exceptions - especially where the rules require you to take a course of action. Every exception is almost defacto a "clash".

The basic principle and guidance on application you quote is irrelevant because the player created the worsened condition, and is not permitted to improve, or return to condition - full stop. Hence the penalty in this particular situation. The position of the bunker i in the example given is irrelevant.
As the rules require you to recover your ball and continue play with it they also permit you to restore the line as an exception in such situations. Makes sense to me...
I agree. Not complicated at all. Two decisions allow you to smooth a bunker on your line and one doesn’t. That’s a clash of decisions that are supposed to clarify and decide on rules that don’t explicitly cater for a particular occurrence. You would think the decisions would be consistent.
That doesn’t sound like a lot of sense to me and is hard to explain to someone not familiar with golf and who think it’s a daft sport. Which I believe brings us back to where we started.
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
I agree. Not complicated at all. Two decisions allow you to smooth a bunker on your line and one doesn’t. That’s a clash of decisions that are supposed to clarify and decide on rules that don’t explicitly cater for a particular occurrence. You would think the decisions would be consistent.
That doesn’t sound like a lot of sense to me and is hard to explain to someone not familiar with golf and who think it’s a daft sport. Which I believe brings us back to where we started.

You are entitled to view it as you see it.

Nearly every rule has exceptions - in fact the very existence of the rules came about as exceptions to the guiding priciple of playing the ball and course as you find them! Exceptions are, by definition a clash (as you choose to call it).

More specific rules will always override general ones.

I also believe that the rules/decisions are consistent -
1. They state that if you worsen your line of play you are stuck with it. (Clear)
2. In a situation where the rules otherwise require you to take a specific course of action that will result in a worsening of your line you can repair the area that you have worsened in so doing.(clear and sensible surely?)

More generally the rules state clearly that you cannot improve your line of play - (clear) but then add guidance as to actions/situations that may be considered as not providing any significant improvement to the stroke being made - in line with many of the posts and comments made to the original question/discussion. It's somewhat ironic that you choose to use these as an illustration of confused rules.

Such confusions are purely a function of the rules trying to be fair, support the care of the course and support pace of play. Without these objectives the rules would only need to include the current 27.1 - the end. You could be out there 24h looking for a ball of course, and there would probably be a good market in Arabic swear phrase books for those times your drive just rolls into the middle of a puddle 300 yrs from the tee and you have to decide whether to try and splash it out or play 3 from the tee etc etc etc
 

Jacko_G

Blackballed
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
7,028
Visit site
You are entitled to view it as you see it.

Nearly every rule has exceptions - in fact the very existence of the rules came about as exceptions to the guiding priciple of playing the ball and course as you find them! Exceptions are, by definition a clash (as you choose to call it).

More specific rules will always override general ones.

I also believe that the rules/decisions are consistent -
1. They state that if you worsen your line of play you are stuck with it. (Clear)
2. In a situation where the rules otherwise require you to take a specific course of action that will result in a worsening of your line you can repair the area that you have worsened in so doing.(clear and sensible surely?)

More generally the rules state clearly that you cannot improve your line of play - (clear) but then add guidance as to actions/situations that may be considered as not providing any significant improvement to the stroke being made - in line with many of the posts and comments made to the original question/discussion. It's somewhat ironic that you choose to use these as an illustration of confused rules.

Such confusions are purely a function of the rules trying to be fair, support the care of the course and support pace of play. Without these objectives the rules would only need to include the current 27.1 - the end. You could be out there 24h looking for a ball of course, and there would probably be a good market in Arabic swear phrase books for those times your drive just rolls into the middle of a puddle 300 yrs from the tee and you have to decide whether to try and splash it out or play 3 from the tee etc etc etc

If rules of golf are being simplified why did I get a headache reading that????
 

robinthehood

Hacker
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
3,472
Location
Moonpig
Visit site
Its a simple enough situation. Just some want to make out it's unfair and that there should be the option of allowing some kind of discretion. Seems like a nice idea but when you really look in to it your on a hiding to nothing
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
If rules of golf are being simplified why did I get a headache reading that????
Firstly, these are all the old rules....as I pointed out earlier the key ruling (that you aren't entitled to make good any area that you have worsened) which currently sits in decision 13-2/29, is now in the main rule dealing with playing the ball as it lies...rule 10.
Second, they aren't just being simplified - it's probably important to recognise that if you stuck to the original rule as envisaged there wouldn't be any complexity- don't touch the sand in a bunker except with the club as you make a stroke; and a rake after you have played and left that bunker. The end. Easy, simple. Then someone gets the bright idea that you should be encouraged to tidy up bunkers on your way round, and the layers of complexity build quickly.
However, and possibly more relevant, whilst the rules have been 're written for both language and construction as well as an increased focus on the players responsibility, pace of play and care of the course....the nominal reduction of rules from 1500+ to 600 odd (depending on how you count them!) is never going to get to simple/simple. So things have been brought together where possible (IO relief is now identical to AGC relief) and penalty area relief has latitude, bunkers have been made a bit fairer, greens a bit fairer....but most players are never going to sit down and learn every possible nuance.

Fundamentally to remove all and any subjective assessment, and provide a completely level playing field, you can only reduce the rules if you reduce, or remove, relief situations. Generally people say 'do that then, until you ask them what they would forsake.....eg. casual water? cart paths?dogs stealing your ball?every lost ball means replay?never repair anything, no balls touched except to remove from the (correct) hole?

Simplified, not simple.
 

Sweep

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
2,476
Visit site
I also believe that the rules/decisions are consistent -
1. They state that if you worsen your line of play you are stuck with it. (Clear)
Unless you are playing a 150yd approach shot and have just raked the bunker 5 yds in front of you... so not clear.
They are called Decisions, not exceptions.
 

Grant85

Head Pro
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
2,828
Location
Glasgow
Visit site
A few points;

* they do have scorers at a lot of events. Even on the Challenge Tour they update scores on the website regularly so there is the potential to at least help players by giving them access to the scoring system and allowing a cross check. No doubt a player could do this themselves if they wanted by checking it on their phone at the scorers hut.

* while it may seem that they could probably 'do away' with scorecards, especially at the bigger events there is a difference between someone scoring for the website, media and spectators compared with someone scoring for the actual tournament. One can probably be done by volunteers or people with basic understanding of golf the other you would probably want to employ an experienced person who understands the rules fully. And even the, errors WILL still happen.

* the thing that gets people in a tizz about these kind of incidents is that it 'feels' like the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It would make a bit more sense to give people the chance of spotting these things at the end of the days play and having the chance to correct their error with a 2 shot penalty, rather than a full DQ.

I don't really see anything that would be a practical problem with that - yes, you might need to do a redraw, but you would have to do that anyway with a DQ, or else have someone play in the slightly wrong order, which is hardly a disaster.

I also wonder if the cards they dish out have room to mark your own score, as well as your playing partners. You think surely they do.
 

doublebogey7

Head Pro
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,836
Location
Leicester
Visit site
A few points;

* they do have scorers at a lot of events. Even on the Challenge Tour they update scores on the website regularly so there is the potential to at least help players by giving them access to the scoring system and allowing a cross check. No doubt a player could do this themselves if they wanted by checking it on their phone at the scorers hut.

* while it may seem that they could probably 'do away' with scorecards, especially at the bigger events there is a difference between someone scoring for the website, media and spectators compared with someone scoring for the actual tournament. One can probably be done by volunteers or people with basic understanding of golf the other you would probably want to employ an experienced person who understands the rules fully. And even the, errors WILL still happen.

* the thing that gets people in a tizz about these kind of incidents is that it 'feels' like the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It would make a bit more sense to give people the chance of spotting these things at the end of the days play and having the chance to correct their error with a 2 shot penalty, rather than a full DQ.

I don't really see anything that would be a practical problem with that - yes, you might need to do a redraw, but you would have to do that anyway with a DQ, or else have someone play in the slightly wrong order, which is hardly a disaster.

I also wonder if the cards they dish out have room to mark your own score, as well as your playing partners. You think surely they do.
On the main tours and some lower ranking events the score card includes a tear off strip where the player marks their own score. The player is invited to compare the score on the tear off against their own card by the scorers before signing and submitting their card to the committee. Pretty sure this system will be employed at qualifying school. Difficult to see how this system could be improved upon without having different rules on the main tours than those for us hackers.
 

duncan mackie

Money List Winner
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
11,135
Visit site
Unless you are playing a 150yd approach shot and have just raked the bunker 5 yds in front of you... so not clear.
They are called Decisions, not exceptions.
You seem to take exception to everything I post, so given that others can read and make their own mind up about the issues raised I will stop, with this parting contribution your last point...

Using the rule under discussion

13-2. Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play
A player must not improve or allow to be improved:
  • the position or lie of his ball,
  • the area of his intended stance or swing,
  • his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or
  • the area in which he is to drop or place a ball,
by any of the following actions:
  • pressing a club on the ground,
  • moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable obstructions and objects defining out of bounds),
  • creating or eliminating irregularities of surface,
  • removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position, or
  • removing dew, frost or water.
However, the player incurs no penalty if the action occurs:
Exception: Ball in hazard - see Rule 13-4.

The relevant decisions have all been quoted or paraphrased recently so I won't add them as well.

Principle, rule and exceptions (both implicit "however..." and explicit).

Decisions are rules. They may have the full structure above or merely be a clarification, or guidance on how a rule is to be interpreted, or cover a possible occurance considered so obscure it would clutter the main wording. They also tend to pull together the application of a principle under another rule as it pertains to this rule. Under the new structure they have been restructured and renamed as "interpretations", which is how they are envisaged to develop going forwards.

On the question you ask, if the raking of the bunker was solely to care for the course, the player isn't raking to repair an area he has worsened (unless he created the damage recoving his ball under a rule), at a time after his ball last came to rest, the lip on the bunker isn't such that it comes into play on the shot being played (any lip 5yds in front of a 150 yd shot is a serious risk for many players!)...then fine.
If this sounds complicated, in practice it's usually blindingly obvious - when the first time a player ever touches a rake is to tidy up a bunker he's about to play over, that's full of deep footprints - everyone knows! When a player could be playing their shot but chooses to tidy a bunker etc etc etc None of this should, of course, matter at all because the player will know if he has even a passing thought as to whether he might visit that area - and won't touch it.
 
Last edited:
Top