Rules Question Comments?

[Happy Gilmore]

Hi Gary,

Have you ever thought of adding a comment section to the rules contest page to allow respondents to leave the reasons they answered as they did? Then after the contest closes (so it does not affect the contest running for the week), some select comments could be posted to entice discussion.

I think that there could be some interesting reasons golfers answer the way they do.

For example:

This week’s question:
Is a brick wall defining out of bounds an immovable obstruction?

I answered No because;
a.) I don't know the ruling for sure so it was mostly a guess (better penalize now and get a stoke back later )
and
b.) because the mass of the wall is out of bounds, it is therefore not in play and cannot be considered an immovable obstruction.

I probably am way off, but I think that it might be interesting to have the ability to explain our :dunce ineptness.

Thanks.

[Kilroy]

There is only one correct answer (yes or no) and a correct reason for it. How you come to your conclusion (right or wrong) is not what it is about, but rather letting people know the correct way of looking at the situation. I think that posting everyone’s interpretations would only result in confusion. "I read that on OttawaGolf, but was it right or wrong????"


I note that "take a penalty now and maybe get it back later" is a common aproach that many people take.
Gary is it not true that in some cases, taking a penalty drop at the wrong time would result in "Playing from a wrong place" which would ADD a penalty to your score?
It really pays to know the rules. I think that most of the time if people are not sure, they will assume that there must be a penalty, just because golf is such a cruel game!

[Happy Gilmore]

When I said, "some select comments could be posted to entice discussion." I didn't mean "posting everyone’s interpretations" that would be nuts and I agree with you that readers may read between the lines and get the wrong idea.

By allowing voters to comment on the question, a common flaw in the way weekend duffers call penalties on themselves may become apparent because they don't know all the rules that well.

Or maybe there is a rules concept that is a little too confusing, i.e. white stakes, red stakes, point of entry, stroke and distance, a waggle touching the ball before the player address / after he addresses the ball, advice .....

All this would allow or provoke, is further detailed discussions on the rules.

A straight out answer to the rule is fine, but that's like getting the answers to the Final Math exam, sometimes you don't fully understand how you got there.

This is just my opinion, but I feel that sometimes a more detailed explanation might benefit some golfers who are just getting into the finer aspect of the rules or existing golfers that just don't get it, and I've played with some.

Thanks.

[Kilroy]

Your point is taken.
Gary is usually around, and happy to discuss the finer points. During the golf season whenever you run into a situation that is unclear, remember to pop in and ask.

I'll go through the questions I have on file that he sent me and look for some for the next few weeks that have more informative answers.

[Gary Hill]

Nothing is preventing you from asking any question right here.

[Happy Gilmore]

I know that I can ask the questions here, but I only seem to think about the rules when I am on the course or when I see the weekly question.

I see members post questions about the current question, but there can be no immediate answer because it would affect the contest. By the time the contest is over, I either forget the question or comment that I had, or I read the new question and have questions about the new one. It's a vicious cycle.

I know that if the question is posted, there is always a response and usually the responses fully answer/explain the ruling in question.

Maybe there could be a direct link to the rules forum from the contest page. I know that when I go to the forums I sometimes get side tracked as to where I originally wanted to go because of all the good posts that are there.

Just some thoughts.

[Happy Gilmore]

I was just back at the rules page and never noticed the tiny link to the rules forum there before. Maybe I never looked close enough.

Sorry for all this. :dunce

[Kilroy]

No problem here Happy. We want feedback from the visitors. Always anxious to hear views on ways to improve the site.

[Gary Hill]

Last week’s question:
Is a brick wall defining out of bounds an immovable obstruction?

Definitions:

Obstructions
An “obstruction’’ is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:
a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings;
b. Any part of an immovable artificial object which is out of bounds; and
c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course.


Out of Bounds
“Out of bounds’’ is beyond the boundaries of the course or any part of the course so marked by the Committee.
When out of bounds is defined by reference to stakes or a fence or as being beyond stakes or a fence, the out of bounds line is determined by the nearest inside points of the stakes or fence posts at ground level excluding angled supports.
Objects defining out of bounds such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, are not obstructions and are deemed to be fixed.
When out of bounds is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is out of bounds.
The out of bounds line extends vertically upwards and downwards.
A ball is out of bounds when all of it lies out of bounds.
A player may stand out of bounds to play a ball lying within bounds.

BOTH definitions confirm that the wall is not an obstruction.

[Happy Gilmore]

So I was right then.

Thanks for the details.

BTW, I went to CB's to get an RCGA rules book and they only had the USGA one. Is there a major difference between the two sets of rules other than the obvious RCGA sanctioned events go by RCGA rules?

Thanks again.

[Gary Hill]

In the R.C.G.A., U.S.G.A., and R&A Rule books, the sections on etiquette, definitions, and Rules of Play are exactly (word for word) the same.

There are subtle differences in the Rules of Amateur Status mostly relating to the differences between currencies.

BTW- The U.S.G.A does NOT allow the distribution of its Rule Books outside of the United States and I am following up on this issue.

[mpare]

USGA and distribution of Rule Book

I was intrigued by the comment that the USGA does not permit the distribution of their rule book outside the USA. While I do not doubt this, they do allow for its distribution indirectly. When one orders the Decisions On The Rules of Golf from the RCGA, one receives the USGA edition which the following stamped on it: "Distributed in Canada Royal Canadian Golf Association..." The significance of this is that an intergral part of the Decisions is the essential incorporation of the rules themselves.

For anyone interested, the volume is a great bargain containing many useful rule interpretations. Here's one: Interpretation 8-1/15 holds that a player's caddie can take a player's club and swing it to show the player how to hit a particular shot so long as this does not hold up play. Admit it. This is a good thing to know, especially if your caddie is a real shotmaker and you aren't.

[Gary Hill]

The Decisions on the Rules of Golf book is a completely separate issue.

Because of its size and technical nature, the ruling bodies have decided to have it printed soley in the United States and distributed world-wide (through the appropriate governing body OR directly from the U.S.G.A. ).

[mpare]

I had not realized that Gary. But are the rules that appear in the Decisions any different than the rules which the USGA would issue in their version of the Rules of Golf distributed in the USA?

[Gary Hill]

No. There is only ONE set of Rules of Play. World-wide, amateur and pro, mens and womans.

The main reason for each governing body distributing the Rule book only in its own juristiction is that a portion of the money received goes to amateur golf in the applicable juristiction.

So, money received from Canadian Rule books goes to Canadian amateur golf, but money from the sale of U.S.G.A. Rule books goes to U.S. amateur golf.

[mpare]

Thanks once again Gary. The financial reasons for adopting such an approach are sensible. By the way, are you a rules official?

[Gary Hill]

Yes.