Below is the link to the current draft of a book of simpler rules for club and social golfers.
This draft will be replaced as modifications resulting from continuing consultation and refinement occur: there remains much work to be done.
Notification of errors, omissions, inconsistencies and incoherence would be greatly appreciated.
Initial draft 08/07/2013
Revised 29/08/13
minor modifications and addition of Rule 32
Revised 19/09/13
permission to carry clubs 'out of play' (Rule 4-4); permission to touch ground in hazard
with club except when executing a practice swing (Rule 3-4); elimination of 'opposite
margin' relief from LWH (Rule 26)
Revised 10/10/13
minor adjustments
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B25yAmL1yRAQemxzSm4zeFNVSWs/edit?usp=sharing
Should the definition of a stroke make reference to a ball deliberately being hit in anger or frustration? ie with the intention of hitting the ball but not a stroke in the 'normal' understanding.
ReplyDeleteaaa
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
At first glance it seems to me that a ball 'in play' struck in anger is covered by the definition: that is, it would be a 'stroke'.
On the other hand a ball 'not in play' struck in anger would not be a matter for the playing rules but for etiquette. I am sure we have all seen damage to the course, particularly greens, where a ball has been knocked away after completion of the hole in match play, or where all available strokes have been consumed in Stableford or par.
Is there some other implication to your comment? Have I missed something?
On another matter... I have adopted two ideas from the Hayes/ Morrissett website to which you alerted me: eliminating prohibition on touching ground in an hazard prior to a stroke except when this occurs in the course of a practice swing in the hazard and eliminating the 'opposite margin' option for relief from a lateral water hazard.
I think that both of these modifications are justified and sensible.
In regard to the latter, I have been a member for 30 years of a club with 14 lateral hazards in play and do not recall ever having seen a player take 'opposite margin' relief.
I have also included in the revised version posted today permission to carry a club/s declared 'out of play' prior to commencement of a round.
Re 1. See decision 18-2a/23
ReplyDeleteRe 2. Yes, I have seen your post and agree.
Yes, I see! It would be interesting to know the thinking behind; ‘The competitor is not considered to have made a stroke’, although there is some common sense to the view that if one is not trying to play the ball into the hole then one is not really ‘playing’.
ReplyDeleteThe options, as I see it, are:
1. Leave things as they are and let Rule 3-2 take its course; or
2. Leave things as they are and let to definition apply – that is, play it from where you hit it!!; or
3. Add a ‘Note’ to the definition of ‘stroke’ along the lines of: ‘A ball struck in anger or disgust is not considered to be a ‘stroke’ and in order to continue the hole the player must proceed in accordance with Rule 18-2a.’
The last would seem the most rational if the essence of the Decision is to be preserved.
This project has just about run its course, I think. However, I would welcome a continuation of our correspondence (in a more general sense) and can be reached on 'rogamania@gmail.com'.
I will continue to check the website indefinitely if that is the avenue you would to prefer to utilise, even if only for discussion which you think may be of interest to others.
Hmmm It is not rare for me to be playing my fifth or sixth stroke on a hole when I have been disgusted with my previous efforts. Would this qualify as striking a ball in disgust? And I'm pretty sure that I've noticed others do so in anger.
ReplyDeleteVery good point General : I understand completely.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think that you would probably be 'playing' in the general direction (no pun) of the hole and so this would not fall under the umbrella of 'knocking the ball away in disgust or anger'. I will examine closely the proposed note to be added to the definition of a stroke.