Juli Inkster DQ'd

[gbower]

Another player caught with a rules violation. In yesterdays Safeway Classic Juli had a long wait to tee off on the 10th (I think) and put a club weight on to take some practice swings and at the end of the round was asked about it and under rule 14-3 she was disqualified. I guess this is another stupid rule that players will want removed from the rule book.

[BC MIST]

Another player caught with a rules violation. In yesterdays Safeway Classic Juli had a long wait to tee off on the 10th (I think) and put a club weight on to take some practice swings and at the end of the round was asked about it and under rule 14-3 she was disqualified. I guess this is another stupid rule that players will want removed from the rule book.

Perhaps the dumbest more on her part was having an aid in her golf bag in the first place. Of course, it's probably the Tour's fault or an official's fault for not warning her on the 10th tee that she was not permitted to use it.

Jose de Jesus Rodriguez was DQ's from the Canadian Tour event yesterday because he forgot to sign his score card (after shooting a 61). Friend of DJ's?

[mpare]

Actually, I think that the interpretation of this rule is silly. I can swing three clubs at once during the round to stretch out, but I can't affix a weighted donut to one club to do effect the same purpose. This interpretation, to my thinking, is silly because neither action assists the player "in his play."

Another player caught with a rules violation. In yesterdays Safeway Classic Juli had a long wait to tee off on the 10th (I think) and put a club weight on to take some practice swings and at the end of the round was asked about it and under rule 14-3 she was disqualified. I guess this is another stupid rule that players will want removed from the rule book.

[BC MIST]

Actually, I think that the interpretation of this rule is silly. I can swing three clubs at once during the round to stretch out, but I can't affix a weighted donut to one club to do effect the same purpose. This interpretation, to my thinking, is silly because neither action assists the player "in his play."

There are many aids that have been developed to assist a player in making a stroke or in his play. Popular amongst these are aids such as the Tac Tic, "The Secret," and the "Power Click," all of which prevent the breaking down of the lead wrist through impact. A donut IS an AID used mainly for the purpose of keeping the muscles loose/warm/stretched, but a weighted club is also the basis of the Bertholy programmes, and is used in swing development. The obvious question is where do you draw the line between aids that directly assist (listed above) and those that may indirectly do so? The obvious answer is that because they all assist in some way, all are banned during play.

[Big Johnny69]

I get a kick out of your tongue in cheek jabs at those that question the rules and offer opinions and ideas on ways to improve them. I don't recall anoyne saying rules should be taken out of the game.

What kind of comment is that in wondering if a guy who forgot to sign his card is a friend of DJ's?? Kind of a snide and useless comment, in my opinion.

[justsomeguy]

There are many aids that have been developed to assist a player in making a stroke or in his play. Popular amongst these are aids such as the Tac Tic, "The Secret," and the "Power Click," all of which prevent the breaking down of the lead wrist through impact. A donut IS an AID used mainly for the purpose of keeping the muscles loose/warm/stretched, but a weighted club is also the basis of the Bertholy programmes, and is used in swing development. The obvious question is where do you draw the line between aids that directly assist (listed above) and those that may indirectly do so? The obvious answer is that because they all assist in some way, all are banned during play.

Sorry, but I have to agree with mpare on this one. I understand why the rule is purposely written to be vague, but this decision is silly. The fact that the only option for this breach is a DQ will only serve as more ammunition to those who think the rules are out of touch.

You've already hinted where the line should be drawn - those that directly assist in making a stroke or in playing the game and those that do not. You're not playing the game when you're warming up.

[sensfan63]

i get a kick out of your tongue in cheek jabs at those that question the rules and offer opinions and ideas on ways to improve them. I don't recall anoyne saying rules should be taken out of the game.

What kind of comment is that in wondering if a guy who forgot to sign his card is a friend of dj's?? Kind of a snide and useless comment, in my opinion.

+1

[BC MIST]

I get a kick out of your tongue in cheek jabs at those that question the rules and offer opinions and ideas on ways to improve them. I don't recall anoyne saying rules should be taken out of the game.

What kind of comment is that in wondering if a guy who forgot to sign his card is a friend of DJ's?? Kind of a snide and useless comment, in my opinion.

Previous to getting involved in the rules, I probably shared some of the same opinions as those expressed here. Over time, however, and after going through some of the educational process, officiating at tournaments, being involved in discussions with those far learned than I, researching the evolution of the more controversial rules, etc., I think have developed a broader understanding of and appreciation for the rules and have changed my mind about many of those I previously questioned. "That rule is stupid," is a common reaction to a bad shot or a poor choice, where a penalty gets in the way of a lower score and aptly exemplified by the recent thoughtlessness of Johnson, Inkster, Rodriguez on the world golf stage. Having signed an incorrect score card in the Tunis one year and played a wrong ball more than once, my choices then were in common with the aforementioned, just as dumb, but at least I didn't whine that the rule was stupid.

Providing ideas here on how to improve the rules is a good idea. However, other than to eliminate penalties for bad shots or dumb choices, I haven't read any.

If you feel my comments here are useless, don't read them.

[mpare]

I'm still trying to figure out which was Stadler's mistake years ago. It wasn't a bad shot for which he was penalized, so it must have been a "dumb choice." I guess laying a towel on the ground to keep his pants clean was not as wise as removing his pants altogether.

Edit: I just now realized that our differences may stem from the fact that you are a strict constructionist whereas I tend to interpret rules in light of their intent and purpose. When a rule says you must sign your scorecard, there isn't a lot of room for interpretation. If you turn in an unsigned card, you're DQ'd. One might not think it a wise rule, but until it is changed, one must comply with it. So too with a rule that prohibits grounding one's club in a bunker.

By contrast, a rule like 13-3 provides more room for interpretation. It reads as follows: "A player is entitled to place his feet firmly in taking his stance, but he must not build a stance." That rule's application requires interpretation when applying it to one who is kneeling on a towel to keep his pants dry. My construction of that rule would not capture one who knelt on a towel to keep his pants dry. One could legitimately have ruled that the player did not, in the circumstances, build a stance by using a towel in this way. Many, schooled in the rules, have made such an argument. That said, I well realize that a specific decision was issued to deal with the Stadler case. That decision is therefore binding. That doesn't mean that it was necessarily the correct interpretation. These decision are not papal bulls. There is no guarantee of infallibility attached to them. Until there is, some of us will continue to question the wisdom of some of them, all the while complying with their commands. Believe it or not, one can do both.

...
Providing ideas here on how to improve the rules is a good idea. However, other than to eliminate penalties for bad shots or dumb choices, I haven't read any.

...

[Hacker]

I suggest that Golf take a page out of Hockey's book......

The problem with golf is that it seems, in my opinion, to be governed by a bunch of closed minded, "old boys" who for whatever reason want to hand on to rules that really seem to serve no purpose.

Golf would serve itself very well by taking a more liberal approach to rules reform - if the NHL can entertain only one face-off dot per zone, oblong shaped nets and an off-ice ref then I'm sure golf can consider letting a play keep warm with a weighted swing device when players are backed up?

Off topic here, but what was the cause of the back-up?? Some rules official taking 25 minutes to ponder some poorly worded vague rule?

[gbower]

I suggest to Dan that we get rid of the rules discussion forums as there are so many not willing to accept what has been part of the game for so many years.

[BC MIST]

That decision is therefore binding. That doesn't mean that it was necessarily the correct interpretation. There is no guarantee of infallibility attached to them.

Decisions are equivalent to rules and are golf laws until the laws is changed. One of the laws that I like is that if an official is right, he's right, and if he's wrong, he's still right.

You would find The Leith Society very interesting.

[Hacker]

I suggest to Dan that we get rid of the rules discussion forums as there are so many not willing to accept what has been part of the game for so many years.

OK, I think I finally have it, you saying that you are a lemming?

You just blindly follow without ever questioning anything??

Do you honestly believe that the Rules of Golf are perfect?

Let's not forget that it was accepted for hundreds of years that the earth was flat.

[gbower]

Hacker I guess you're a hockey player where all they try to do is break the rules.

[mpare]

I think you go too far, Gerry. I fully accept and follow both the Rules and the Decisions rendered on those Rules. That said, it doesn't mean that from time to time I might question the wisdom of either the rules or their interpretation. After all, that kind of critical approach is the only way that advancements are made.

I suggest to Dan that we get rid of the rules discussion forums as there are so many not willing to accept what has been part of the game for so many years.

[mpare]

You might be wrong. He could be a soccer player where diving is de rigeur.

Hacker I guess you're a hockey player where all they try to do is break the rules.

[mpare]

I burst out laughing when I read that. Thanks.

Decisions are equivalent to rules and are golf laws until the laws is changed. One of the laws that I like is that if an official is right, he's right, and if he's wrong, he's still right.

...

[Hacker]

Hacker I guess you're a hockey player where all they try to do is break the rules.

Maybe I am, but one thing that I'm not is a pompous ass

[mpare]

One thing I can say for sure about Gerry. He's no pompous ass. He was making a joke as was I with my reference to soccer.

Maybe I am, but one thing that I'm not is a pompous ass

[Hacker]

One thing I can say for sure about Gerry. He's no pompous ass. He was making a joke as was I with my reference to soccer.

His body of work speaks for itself in these recent rules "discussions"....and I didn't call anyone a pompous ass, I said that I wasn't one - maybe we need to go to the "decisions" to figure out the "true intent" of my statement

[mpare]

Thanks for the reference to The Leith Society. I had not visited it previously. I will be doing so from now on.

...
You would find The Leith Society very interesting.

[justsomeguy]

I think you go too far, Gerry. I fully accept and follow both the Rules and the Decisions rendered on those Rules. That said, it doesn't mean that from time to time I might question the wisdom of either the rules or their interpretation. After all, that kind of critical approach is the only way that advancements are made.

I couldn't agree more.

[mpare]

Touche.

His body of work speaks for itself in these recent rules "discussions"....and I didn't call anyone a pompous ass, I said that I wasn't one - maybe we need to go to the "decisions" to figure out the "true intent" of my statement

[Kilroy]

I think we need to calm down here.

Thanks.

[AAA]

That said, I well realize that a specific decision was issued to deal with the Stadler case.

I believe the decision had been published some time before the Stadler incident.

[mpare]

You're right. It happened earlier in that year. My mistake. All of which makes the ruling against Stadler more understandable. That said, I still think that the interpretation of the rule is wrong, but I don't get to make such decisions.

The decision had been published some time before the Stadler incident.

[PapaPat]

I suggest that Golf take a page out of Hockey's book......

The problem with golf is that it seems, in my opinion, to be governed by a bunch of closed minded, "old boys" who for whatever reason want to hand on to rules that really seem to serve no purpose.

Golf would serve itself very well by taking a more liberal approach to rules reform - if the NHL can entertain only one face-off dot per zone, oblong shaped nets and an off-ice ref then I'm sure golf can consider letting a play keep warm with a weighted swing device when players are backed up?

Off topic here, but what was the cause of the back-up?? Some rules official taking 25 minutes to ponder some poorly worded vague rule?

How do you know "golf" hasn't considered this? I'm led to believe that during each four year period they consider all kinds of things. Sometimes, an incident such as the Cink situation will even prompt them to adjust an interpretation mid-cycle. So raising questions is healthy. Living with conclusions is golf. Like BC as I get deeper and deeper into this stuff, I have a deeper appreciation for the job done by the R&A/USGA, and find less and less to disagree with. Where I do disagree, I can still see the rationale for their approach to a given ruling. And yes, I find it frustrating sometimes trying to defend a given rule.

[BC MIST]

I suggest to Dan that we get rid of the rules discussion forums as there are so many not willing to accept what has been part of the game for so many years.

Gerry, We are participating in an exercise in futility, here. Statements such as these, The problem with golf is that it seems, in my opinion, to be governed by a bunch of closed minded, "old boys" who for whatever reason want to hand on to rules that really seem to serve no purpose. OK, I think I finally have it, you saying that you are a lemming? You just blindly follow without ever questioning anything?? are in fact, the opposite to the actual truth. One only needs to look at the most recent revision of the Rules/Decisions to see literally hundreds of changes/modifications/rewordings/additions that have helped to streamline the rules, and many more will come in 2012. We both know that many of those in charge are not "old boys" but are, in fact more modern, liberal minded, and younger people who will continue the work of making the rules for a complicated game, better for all.

What is lacking, as evidenced by some of the comments, is the ability to see the big picture, or an understanding of why the rule exists, rather than just "How does the use of a donut give anyone an advantage?" Even though we still question some of the rules, we have both gone from, "I don't agree with that," to "Now I understand why it's there," and that evolution continues.

Locally, we have accomplished a lot in a short time. Our team has given many rules seminars at our own clubs and others, to golfers who want to learn, we have helped many golfers in OVGA tournaments by our "How can I help you?" approach rather than a combative one, I believe that we have the respect of the players, we have improved the overall pace of play in tournaments, you have help out at various clubs club championships, we have helped others become better officials through our discussions at the weekly meetings and on course work with them and many other others, all very positive accomplishments.

You will do what you want, but reread the comments in italics above as a reminder of how pointless it is responding to such drivel and why unless it's a "Ruling Wanted," where someone actually wants to learn, I choose to end my "useless" contributions

[PapaPat]

gerry, we are participating in an exercise in futility, here. Statements such as these, the problem with golf is that it seems, in my opinion, to be governed by a bunch of closed minded, "old boys" who for whatever reason want to hand on to rules that really seem to serve no purpose. ok, i think i finally have it, you saying that you are a lemming? you just blindly follow without ever questioning anything?? are in fact, the opposite to the actual truth. One only needs to look at the most recent revision of the rules/decisions to see literally hundreds of changes/modifications/rewordings/additions that have helped to streamline the rules, and many more will come in 2012. We both know that many of those in charge are not "old boys" but are, in fact more modern, liberal minded, and younger people who will continue the work of making the rules for a complicated game, better for all.

What is lacking, as evidenced by some of the comments, is the ability to see the big picture, or an understanding of why the rule exists, rather than just "how does the use of a donut give anyone an advantage?" even though we still question some of the rules, we have both gone from, "i don't agree with that," to "now i understand why it's there," and that evolution continues.

Locally, we have accomplished a lot in a short time. Our team has given many rules seminars at our own clubs and others, to golfers who want to learn, we have helped many golfers in ovga tournaments by our "how can i help you?" approach rather than a combative one, i believe that we have the respect of the players, we have improved the overall pace of play in tournaments, you have help out at various clubs club championships, we have helped others become better officials through our discussions at the weekly meetings and on course work with them and many other others, all very positive accomplishments.

You will do what you want, but reread the comments in italics above as a reminder of how pointless it is responding to such drivel and why unless it's a "ruling wanted," where someone actually wants to learn, i choose to end my "useless" contributions

illigitimi non carborundum!

[Kilroy]

Pretty sad when people want to "shoot the messenger".

The RO's don't make the rules. They volunteer their time here and on the course to help us to understand them and you guys rag on them like it's your opinion against theirs. Some of you don't seem to understand what a valuable contribution they are bringing to the forum and you just want to insult them for being "holier than thou". What a thankless job.

Not a very proud moment for me. I actually thought ours was a more civilized forum. Apparently it's not. Just another place on the web to argue like kids in a schoolyard. Embarrasing.