Tom Murray - You Plonker!

[Lord Tyrion]

DM - I always appreciate 'correct' rulings from you and others. I am fine with that, it is educational.

Sometimes the discussion about 'why' and 'is it appropriate' gets lost in the 'that's the rule'. We know 'that's the rule', people are merely questioning whether the rule actually makes sense. It's a bit like the offside rule in football. We know it is the rule but it is currently a good rule?

 

[duncan mackie]

Sometimes the discussion about 'why' and 'is it appropriate' gets lost in the 'that's the rule'. We know 'that's the rule', people are merely questioning whether the rule actually makes sense. It's a bit like the offside rule in football. We know it is the rule but it is currently a good rule?

Agree, but it would sometimes help if people expanded their why?, or even made it clear what exactly they were questioning!

I'm afraid I can't help with offside...i suspect it was put in for a reason, so has something changed to make that reason no longer applicable? 🏳

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Agree, but it would sometimes help if people expanded their why?, or even made it clear what exactly they were questioning!

I'm afraid I can't help with offside...i suspect it was put in for a reason, so has something changed to make that reason no longer applicable? 🏳

I threw in offside as FIFA have amended the rule over the years to include active and non active. The rule has evolved from being rigid to more grey and many people neither like or agree with it. It is the most contentious rule that most people would know, often argued over. Unfortunately it didn't hit the button with you

 

[Jacko_G]

DM - I always appreciate 'correct' rulings from you and others. I am fine with that, it is educational.

Sometimes the discussion about 'why' and 'is it appropriate' gets lost in the 'that's the rule'. We know 'that's the rule', people are merely questioning whether the rule actually makes sense. It's a bit like the offside rule in football. We know it is the rule but it is currently a good rule?

Rules are brought in for a reason and I'd suggest that signing for a score that you didn't have is a fairy big no no in any sport.

It has quite clearly been brought in for a reason and if this was a club competition that went to a back 9 countback where an incorrect 3 was recorded instead of a 4 it would have fairy wide reaching consequences that could deprive a deserving winner of a prize.

 

[duncan mackie]

I threw in offside as FIFA have amended the rule over the years to include active and non active. The rule has evolved from being rigid to more grey and many people neither like or agree with it. It is the most contentious rule that most people would know, often argued over. Unfortunately it didn't hit the button with you

🤔

So is it a situation where people don't like the existence of grey, especially when it has been used to the apparent detriment of their team, or benefit of the other team - or is it that they feel the game should be fundamentally reformed (even my very limited understanding of the game suggests that it would be a completely different game without it) starting with the removal of that rule entirely?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Rules are brought in for a reason and I'd suggest that signing for a score that you didn't have is a fairy big no no in any sport.

It has quite clearly been brought in for a reason and if this was a club competition that went to a back 9 countback where an incorrect 3 was recorded instead of a 4 it would have fairy wide reaching consequences that could deprive a deserving winner of a prize.

Everyone agrees that a wrong score is a no no. No dispute about that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

🤔

So is it a situation where people don't like the existence of grey, especially when it has been used to the apparent detriment of their team, or benefit of the other team - or is it that they feel the game should be fundamentally reformed (even my very limited understanding of the game suggests that it would be a completely different game without it) starting with the removal of that rule entirely?

Funnily enough I played hockey where offside was fully removed and it worked very well. I don't see football going down that road though.

The rule used to be very clear but recent changes have brought a few complications. I suspect older fans would prefer the clarity of the older system, newer fans know no difference.

 

[PIng]

Funnily enough I played hockey where offside was fully removed and it worked very well. I don't see football going down that road though.

The rule used to be very clear but recent changes have brought a few complications. I suspect older fans would prefer the clarity of the older system, newer fans know no difference.

We saw an example of this at the weekend - Southampton player miles offside under the clearcut old rules, but subject to the referees & linesmen's opinion under the new ones. Massive controversy followed. Golf has to try to avoid getting into this sort of mess for official competitions and have clearcut rules and penalties.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I may be taking a far too simplistic view on things but isn't one of the very first things your are taught when you start playing in competitions is to take responsibility for your card and ensure the scores entered are correct. How many of us have been DQ'd for making a mistake in a club comp? I know I have for not signing the card (yes I know it's not the same as Tom's mistake) and it has cost me a win, pro shop vouchers and roll up money. A mistake I've strived hard never to repeat. I can only assume Murray and his partner agreed the score was correct and never checked further than that. Again, how many of us do the same thing each week and just agreed a total and signed without cross checking each hole. A very costly error in his case but I like the positive tweets he's put out especially given the double kick of missing automatic qualification in the last Challenge Tour event

 

[Karl102]

Gutted for him. He was only 600 Euro off gaining his card without having to go to Q school. Tom, his brother Matt (who is captain of his University team in the USA) and his dad - former European Tour player Andrew Murray are all members of Lymm and have been for years. They put loads back into the club in terms of junior coaching and marketing, it’s untrue!
Hope he bounces back strong next year!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Just checked the q school qualifying and Oliver Wilson missed today's cut. Wilson and Murray were both on The Cut talking about this week and what it's like to be involved. Sad that neither made it through.

 

[Sweep]

@Orikoru @Sweep

I guess this is ok too ? No advantage gained after all...

Seriously. Let it go. You are making yourself look silly.

 

[robinthehood]

Seriously. Let it go. You are making yourself look silly.

Oh my sides.

 

[Sweep]

Are you serious? You don't know you can't improve your intended line.
I guess that's why you are struggling with this so much .

The rule makes no reference to “intended” in this context. It only uses “intended” in stance and swing. Not line. As you are so familiar with this rule, I would have thought you would know that. Maybe that is why you are struggling with this so much.

 

[robinthehood]

The rule makes no reference to “intended” in this context. It only uses “intended” in stance and swing. Not line. As you are so familiar with this rule, I would have thought you would know that. Maybe that is why you are struggling with this so much.

Now I'm really lost as the rules say exactly that. If you think it's ok to alter stuff on your line then be my guest but I'll not be doing it.
But I don't really care about that. I was just interested how you implement your no advantage rule.

 

[Sweep]

Now I'm really lost as the rules say exactly that. If you think it's ok to alter stuff on your line then be my guest but I'll not be doing it.
But I don't really care about that. I was just interested how you implement your no advantage rule.

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.

 

[garyinderry]

Silly law or not?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46202509

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Silly law or not?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46202509

Yes. How they decide is irrelevant as long as it is fair. This sounds like a golf rule to me

 

[robinthehood]

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.

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

 

[bobmac]

He was disqualified from Q school for a schoolboy error........
Lesson learned