winter rules ok...

[rulefan]

The intro to Appendix A (local Rules) says: As provided in Rule 33-8a, the Committee may make and publish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy established in this Appendix.

The intro to the local rule says: However, adverse conditions, such as heavy snows, spring thaws, prolonged rains or extreme heat can make fairways unsatisfactory and sometimes prevent use of heavy mowing equipment.

The Specimen Local Rule says: “A ball lying on a closely mown area through the green (or specify a more restricted area, e.g., at the 6th hole).

Restricting the area is provided for in the wording but to extend the area would not be consistent with the bold words. The substantive parts of specimen local rules may not be modified or waived.

 

[backwoodsman]

The intro to Appendix A (local Rules) says: As provided in Rule 33-8a, the Committee may make and publish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy established in this Appendix.

The intro to the local rule says: However, adverse conditions, such as heavy snows, spring thaws, prolonged rains or extreme heat can make fairways unsatisfactory and sometimes prevent use of heavy mowing equipment.

The Specimen Local Rule says: “A ball lying on a closely mown area through the green (or specify a more restricted area, e.g., at the 6th hole).

Restricting the area is provided for in the wording but to extend the area would not be consistent with the bold words. The substantive parts of specimen local rules may not be modified or waived.

Ta.

So is the point that you can't have any local rules except the specimen local rules? (Because there are sections in the Decision s that sort of suggest otherwise)

 

[duncan mackie]

Ta.

So is the point that you can't have any local rules except the specimen local rules? (Because there are sections in the Decision s that sort of suggest otherwise)

It might help if you reference the sections in the decisions that you believe suggest otherwise.....

 

[backwoodsman]

It might help if you reference the sections in the decisions that you believe suggest otherwise.....

33-8/13 "local rule... would be acceptable ... following is suggested"
33-8/22 "local rule ... would be justified ..."
33-8/24 "local rule should read..."
Etc

The latter seems to read as an instruction but the others don't which, to me suggests everything is not hard and fast, and there's leeway in making local rules?

 

[Colin L]

"Should" in the Rules is recommendation not a requirement.

 

[backwoodsman]

Even more so then. None of my examples seem to be definitive instructions, therefore suggesting room for discretion in making and phrasing of local rules?

 

[Colin L]

Perhaps look at it this way: you can only make local rules about those matters detailed in the Rules, but you may word your local rule differently from the suggested/recommended wording.

For example, the LR at my club for relief from sprinkler heads within 2 club lengths of a putting green does not mention anything about interference if your ball is on the green - which is in the suggested LR - simply because there is nowhere on the course where that can happen. No point in legislating for something that won't occur - and the flexibility in wording allows us to miss it out.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

About 3 years ago I seem to remember an incident that happened in a USPGA tour event where preferred lies were in place. A player landed in the rough on the slope of a greenside bunker but he was able to lift, clean and place his ball on the green or at least on the fringe and putted out. The ball could not originally be seen before he picked it up so it could not be classed as 'closely mown'.

Is this possible or is my memory suspect?

 

[rulefan]

About 3 years ago I seem to remember an incident that happened in a USPGA tour event where preferred lies were in place. A player landed in the rough on the slope of a greenside bunker but he was able to lift, clean and place his ball on the green or at least on the fringe and putted out. The ball could not originally be seen before he picked it up so it could not be classed as 'closely mown'.

Is this possible or is my memory suspect?

It was almost certainly relief for an embedded ball through the green, which is on the pro tours hard cards (ie always in force).

 

[Colin L]

I can't place the incident you refer to, but are you sure we are talking of preferred lies? The USPGA, as far as I recall, allows relief for an embedded ball as a permanent local rule for its tournaments. Perhaps the player you mention was being allowed relief from an embedded ball.

 

[Colin L]

Synchronised posting yet again And again fortunately not in contradiction.

 

[rulefan]

Ta.

So is the point that you can't have any local rules except the specimen local rules? (Because there are sections in the Decision s that sort of suggest otherwise)

The decisions under 33-8 are unusual situations which don't crop often enough to be in the Rules book but often enough to justify a local rule. Although the wording is a 'recommendation' the principle must be adhered to.

In addition, a club may ask for approval of a local rule for an unusual situation which is temporary or specific to a particular course. These are not for general use and are not therefore published publicly.

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

It was almost certainly relief for an embedded ball through the green, which is on the pro tours hard cards (ie always in force).

I'm pretty sure there were preferred lies but an embedded ball makes sense as you couldn't see the ball.

 

[backwoodsman]

The decisions under 33-8 are unusual situations which don't crop often enough to be in the Rules book but often enough to justify a local rule. Although the wording is a 'recommendation' the principle must be adhered to.

In addition, a club may ask for approval of a local rule for an unusual situation which is temporary or specific to a particular course. These are not for general use and are not therefore published publicly.

I think I'm going to have to stay in my state of incomprehension. To me, this one from rulefan describes exactly why I think we could be allowed to have a local rules giving the equivalent of winter rules TTG. Conditions at our place are, for short periods, sometimes so bad that the game can't be played with equity. Hence the need for the LR about TTG in those periods.

Of course, one could argue that the course should be closed. But we're often not, so play with "extended pick & place". I suppose I can only play by the same "rules" as everyone else going round the track - and concentrate on my game rather than worry about why we might not be legal. But thanks for trying to explain.

Ps: they are never qualifiers for other reasons, so I'm not worried on that side of things

 

[Colin L]

I think I'm going to have to stay in my state of incomprehension.

One last try, then. When I said you can only make local rules about those matters detailed in the Rules and rulefan said you have to adhere to the principle, we are saying that you cannot make a local rule if there is nothing in the Rules to say that you can. And there are no words saying that, whatever way you might word it, you can make a local rule extending preferred lies to through the green. It's just not there.

Whether there should be authority to make such a local rule, whether you think there is a need to have one is a different argument.

 

[backwoodsman]

One last try, then. When I said you can only make local rules about those matters detailed in the Rules and rulefan said you have to adhere to the principle, we are saying that you cannot make a local rule if there is nothing in the Rules to say that you can. And there are no words saying that, whatever way you might word it, you can make a local rule extending preferred lies to through the green. It's just not there.

Whether there should be authority to make such a local rule, whether you think there is a need to have one is a different argument.

Ok, I accept all that, but one last try to explain my confusion.

The Rules say you can make LRs
The authority for making of a LR for poor conditions is there - else winter rules wouldn't exist.
The principle of LRs for poor conditions exists - again else no winter rules
The principle of relief over a wider area is still only the principle of relief from exceptionally poor conditions, so it's not really a deviation.
The various decisions suggest there is discretion and latitude in what a LR says/does.

I just struggle to make that add up to "you can't do it". Sorry.

(Reason for trying to get to bottom of it, is that I didn't want to rock up to the club, suggest that we're doing wrong, then not be able to explain precisely why).

 

[rulefan]

I think I'm going to have to stay in my state of incomprehension. To me, this one from rulefan describes exactly why I think we could be allowed to have a local rules giving the equivalent of winter rules TTG. /QUOTE]

You are correct in saying you could have such a local rule but only with the express authority of the R&A.

The intro to the Appendix says:
If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the R&A must be obtained.

I my experience I would suggest that they would not agree. To the best of my knowledge, they never have before.

They would probably suggest that the 'Cleaning Ball' local rule be used (ie Lift, Clean and Replace)

The R&A are very keen to keep the rough as a place where you shouldn't have an easier out.
The local rule permitted relief for an embedded ball TTG is an optional LR because although the USGA wanted it built in to the normal rule, the R&A didn't. So they compromised. The USGA Open uses the local rule, The Open Championship doesn't.

 

[backwoodsman]

I think I'm going to have to stay in my state of incomprehension. To me, this one from rulefan describes exactly why I think we could be allowed to have a local rules giving the equivalent of winter rules TTG. /QUOTE]

You are correct in saying you could have such a local rule but only with the express authority of the R&A.

The intro to the Appendix says:
If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the R&A must be obtained.

I my experience I would suggest that they would not agree. To the best of my knowledge, they never have before.

They would probably suggest that the 'Cleaning Ball' local rule be used (ie Lift, Clean and Replace)

The R&A are very keen to keep the rough as a place where you shouldn't have an easier out.
The local rule permitted relief for an embedded ball TTG is an optional LR because although the USGA wanted it built in to the normal rule, the R&A didn't. So they compromised. The USGA Open uses the local rule, The Open Championship doesn't.

Ok, that's the best one yet. The R&A have to agree it. I'll stick with that. So you got there in the end. Ta.