M L Wadsworth

Those of you keen to keep up-to-date with changes to the Rules of Golf, may
have missed a change to Rule 33-3 which now reads:

"The Committee must establish the times of starting and, in stroke play,
arrange the groups in which competitors play.."



This small change from "should" to "must" was not listed among the principle
changes at the beginning of the Rule book but has a significant impact upon
the way many clubs, particularly private clubs operate their competitions.
No longer will members be able to decide on the day whether to enter a Medal
depending on the weather and sign in for a Medal just before going out to
play with their regular friends.



This change has been implemented because of concerns within the Ruling
Bodies, that so few players are playing to the Rules of Golf and are failing
to learn the correct Rules as a result of always playing with the same
people.



Clubs will have to require players to enter their names in advance (probably
on an Entry Sheet on the notice board) and then the Committee will carry out
a random draw to produce a Starting Sheet.



Following a number of queries from clubs, a new Decision will be published
in 2010 making it clear that Committees may still arrange starting groups in
order of exact handicaps or segregate players into different starting groups
by skill level (in the UK that could be by handicap category) or permit
players to select a starting period, provided the length of the period still
gives scope for a random draw.



CONGU have said that it will allow clubs up to the end of 2008 to change
their procedures, thereafter any club which has failed to conform to the
revised Rule 33-1, will loose its authority to issue CONGU handicaps and
their members handicaps would lapse after 1st June 2009.



I am surprised this has not had more publicity in the golfing press, but
then many do not publish on the first day of the month, particularly in
April.

Demetri

M L Wadsworth wrote:

>
> I am surprised this has not had more publicity in the golfing press,

Similarly, at our Club at Headingly, Leeds the Committee have imposed a
£150 levy on any member who works for the Government including civil
servants, doctors and teachers and also on anyone who drives a car with
a personalised number plate

Janet Homer

Nice one, Malcolm. Now all we need do is forward it to CONGU and the R&A to
drop a hint for the next revisions...............................).

Will miss you at F.o.A. Hope you are still enjoying your golf locally. Oh,
by the way, I did see the reference to the bikinis. Sadly, few ladies that
I golf with would display to advantage in them. It's bad enough seeeing us
in the latest jumpers that are available - knitted in the round they cling
and show every curve, unfortunately, these are not where most of us would
wish them to be!!

Love & peace

Janet

Jpw

> I am surprised this has not had more publicity in the golfing press, but
> then many do not publish on the first day of the month, particularly in
> April.

Thanks for the leg-pull, Malcolm. I got half way through your post
before realising its intentions.

However had the first of the month fallen last Sunday I would rather
think that poor old Stewart Cink would mistake what happened to him as
a leg pull, (albeit legal) How is it possible that a man be DQ'd for
being a tidy person and carrying out one of the important parts of the
etiquette of the game? It is drummed into every young player that he
must leave the course in the condition that he would expect to find
it. And that is all that Cink did.

I would take a bet that out of every 100 golfers only one (if that)
would understand why he was penalised prior to Sunday. Even reading
13-4 it is so easy to overlook the little phrase ".....ball that is in
a hazard....".

JPW

M L Wadsworth

"JPW" <> wrote in message
news:bc17d84a-d7b4-4262-952b-...
>
> However had the first of the month fallen last Sunday I would rather
> think that poor old Stewart Cink would mistake what happened to him as
> a leg pull, (albeit legal) How is it possible that a man be DQ'd for
> being a tidy person and carrying out one of the important parts of the
> etiquette of the game? It is drummed into every young player that he
> must leave the course in the condition that he would expect to find
> it. And that is all that Cink did.
>
> I would take a bet that out of every 100 golfers only one (if that)
> would understand why he was penalised prior to Sunday. Even reading
> 13-4 it is so easy to overlook the little phrase ".....ball that is in
> a hazard....".
>
> JPW

Pat,

I am sure I would have missed it had I been a Rules Official or Referee
there at the time.

For the benefit of those who may not know what we are talking about, Stewart
Cink, as I understand it, stood in a fairway bunker to play a ball outside
of the bunker (quite all right).
Having played, his ball came to rest in a greenside bunker.
Stewart then smoothed the sand in the bunker where he had stood as every
good golfer would do.

The right to smooth a bunker without exception applies only after a stroke
is made at a ball in the same bunker.
In this case, Stewart's ball was never in a bunker until after he played it.

He was caught by Rule 13-4a which prohibits testing "the condition of any
hazard or any **similar** hazard" while a ball lies in a hazard.
All bunkers are seen as similar; all water hazards are seen as similar - the
only dissimilar hazards are a bunker and a water hazard.

Unfortunately, Stewart had already returned his score card, quite unaware he
had infringed 13-4a and was therefore disqualified for a wrong score.

I think we may see a new Decision in 2010 and a Rule change in 2012 for this
one as it raises all sorts of situations.
For example, my hat or my score card blows into a bunker, I fetch it and
smooth the bunker as I leave.
My ball lies through the green and no where near the bunker nor is it on my
line of play.
Then, a couple of strokes later (probably 4 in my case), while still playing
the same hole, my ball goes in a bunker.
I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!


Malcolm

John Laird

On Apr 1, 9:23 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
<malCUTcolTHEmwadswo...@btCACKLEinternet.com> wrote:
> I think we may see a new Decision in 2010 and a Rule change in 2012 for this
> one as it raises all sorts of situations.
> For example, my hat or my score card blows into a bunker, I fetch it and
> smooth the bunker as I leave.
> My ball lies through the green and no where near the bunker nor is it on my
> line of play.
> Then, a couple of strokes later (probably 4 in my case), while still playing
> the same hole, my ball goes in a bunker.
> I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
> bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!

Are you sure you are not stretching the meaning of the word "before"
to an illogical extent ? As in "before making a stroke at a ball that
lies in a hazard..." If the meaning is not restricted to actions
taken before the *next* stroke, I cannot see where you can draw a
line. Hole before, round before, week before ?

You may be right about this incident provoking a change, though.

Phil Kyle

"M L Wadsworth" <> writes:

> "JPW" <> wrote in message
> news:bc17d84a-d7b4-4262-952b-...
> >
> > However had the first of the month fallen last Sunday I would rather
> > think that poor old Stewart Cink would mistake what happened to him as
> > a leg pull, (albeit legal) How is it possible that a man be DQ'd for
> > being a tidy person and carrying out one of the important parts of the
> > etiquette of the game? It is drummed into every young player that he
> > must leave the course in the condition that he would expect to find
> > it. And that is all that Cink did.
> >
> > I would take a bet that out of every 100 golfers only one (if that)
> > would understand why he was penalised prior to Sunday. Even reading
> > 13-4 it is so easy to overlook the little phrase ".....ball that is in
> > a hazard....".
> >
> > JPW
>
> Pat,
>
> I am sure I would have missed it had I been a Rules Official or Referee
> there at the time.
>
> For the benefit of those who may not know what we are talking about, Stewart
> Cink, as I understand it, stood in a fairway bunker to play a ball outside
> of the bunker (quite all right).
> Having played, his ball came to rest in a greenside bunker.
> Stewart then smoothed the sand in the bunker where he had stood as every
> good golfer would do.
>
> The right to smooth a bunker without exception applies only after a stroke
> is made at a ball in the same bunker.
> In this case, Stewart's ball was never in a bunker until after he played it.
>
> He was caught by Rule 13-4a which prohibits testing "the condition of any
> hazard or any **similar** hazard" while a ball lies in a hazard.
> All bunkers are seen as similar; all water hazards are seen as similar - the
> only dissimilar hazards are a bunker and a water hazard.
>
> Unfortunately, Stewart had already returned his score card, quite unaware he
> had infringed 13-4a and was therefore disqualified for a wrong score.
>
> I think we may see a new Decision in 2010 and a Rule change in 2012 for this
> one as it raises all sorts of situations.
> For example, my hat or my score card blows into a bunker, I fetch it and
> smooth the bunker as I leave.
> My ball lies through the green and no where near the bunker nor is it on my
> line of play.
> Then, a couple of strokes later (probably 4 in my case), while still playing
> the same hole, my ball goes in a bunker.
> I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
> bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!

No you wouldn't because, in your scenario, your ball lay through the
green when you raked the bunker; therefore, Rule 13-4 is inapplicable.

Cink took his stance outside the bunker to play his stroke (he had
walked into the bunker solely to assess his upcoming stroke). His
caddie could have raked that fairway bunker BEFORE Cink made the
stroke that cause the ball to come to rest in the greenside bunker.

Course left in proper repair, player not in breach of Rule, life grand.

David S-A

M L Wadsworth wrote:

> I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
> bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!
>
>
> Malcolm
>
>

No you don't Malcolm, because your ball was not lying in a bunker at the
time you 'tested' the condition.

As for the Stewart Cink....he knew his ball was in a bunker at the time
he repaired his 'damage'.....he is a 'professional' who earns his living
playing golf....and he should know the rules, and the penalties
involved. Rule 6-1 appears to be a fairly simple statement to me,
understood by most people who play serious golf.

cheers
david

M L Wadsworth

"david s-a" <> wrote in message
news:...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>
>> I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
>> bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!
>>
>>
>> Malcolm
>
> No you don't Malcolm, because your ball was not lying in a bunker at the
> time you 'tested' the condition.
>
> As for the Stewart Cink....he knew his ball was in a bunker at the time he
> repaired his 'damage'.....he is a 'professional' who earns his living
> playing golf....and he should know the rules, and the penalties involved.
> Rule 6-1 appears to be a fairly simple statement to me, understood by most
> people who play serious golf.
>
> cheers
> david

Thank you David, John and Phil.
Of course you are all correct.
It was not a right example.

Peter Strauss

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:16:45 +1100, david s-a
<> wrote:

> M L Wadsworth wrote:
>
> > I incur loss of hole/ 2 stroke penalty for testing the condition of the
> > bunker from which I retrieved my equipment!!
> >
> >
> > Malcolm
> >
> >
>
> No you don't Malcolm, because your ball was not lying in a bunker at the
> time you 'tested' the condition.
>
> As for the Stewart Cink....he knew his ball was in a bunker at the time
> he repaired his 'damage'.....he is a 'professional' who earns his living
> playing golf....and he should know the rules, and the penalties
> involved. Rule 6-1 appears to be a fairly simple statement to me,
> understood by most people who play serious golf.
>
David, contrast that position, with which I fully agree, with Decision
1-3/1, where players are given leeway "if (they) were ignorant of the
Rules..."

Seems to me that this is grossly inconsistent with 6-1. The players
are agreeing to a process which is in violation of the rules, and in
fact agreeing to breach/waive a rule, even if they don't use verbiage
which suggests such.
And if the point of that decision is valid, and ignorance of the Rules
is, in fact, an excuse, then why not extend that to the players in
1-3/2? Suppose they claim they didn't know the Rules?
Don't they also deserve a pass, along with their partners in crime in
the preceding decision?

Peter