__________________
16.1 d
d. Testing Surface During the stipulated round, a player must not test 
the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or 
scraping the surface.

Exception: Between the play of two holes, a player may test the surface 
of any practice putting green and the putting green of the hole last 
played, unless the Committee has prohibited such action (see Note 2 to 
Rule 7-2).
__________________

I must be missing something here because I can't see what significant 
benefit or advantage can be achieved by 'testing the surface' of a 
putting green in order to put.

The RoG specifically forbids it but allows actions which could be 
construed as testing the surface as long as they are not done to 
actually knowingly 'test the surface' for instance repairing a pitch 
mark, brushing aside loose impediments, cleaning a ball, pressing down 
behind the ball to test how wet the green is or indeed WALKING on the 
putting green!

With all of these actions, the golfer can gain information as to the 
wetness or stiffness of the grass and it's direction of growth. Such 
knowledge is openly available to all the other golfers playing in the 
same competition. Further, being allowed to test the green of the last 
hole played, by roughing it for instance, can actually effect the play 
of the hole for those following.

So apart from not allowing rolling a ball on the green before finishing 
the hole I fail to see why the rule is there, struggle to find how 
gaining such knowledge can be avoided in the first place, either on 
purpose or by accident, and how such knowledge could be used to gain an 
unfair advantage over other golfers unless such testing changes or 
improves anything on the line of the put etc.

It seems to me that the rule can only be applied when the golfer intends 
to gain information from such actions and how can that be tested?

Is this one of the most commonly broken rules?

-- 
Durram

"Demetri (Durram)"  wrote in message 
news:fke2ns$u05$1@aioe.org...
> __________________
> 16.1 d
> d. Testing Surface
During the stipulated round, a player must not test
> the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or 
> scraping the surface.
>
> Exception: Between the play of two holes, a player may test the surface of 
> any practice putting green and the putting green of the hole last played, 
> unless the Committee has prohibited such action (see Note 2 to Rule 7-2).
> __________________
>
> I must be missing something here because I can't see what significant 
> benefit or advantage can be achieved by 'testing the surface' of a putting 
> green in order to put.
>
> The RoG specifically forbids it but allows actions which could be 
> construed as testing the surface as long as they are not done to actually 
> knowingly 'test the surface' for instance repairing a pitch mark, brushing 
> aside loose impediments, cleaning a ball, pressing down behind the ball to 
> test how wet the green is or indeed WALKING on the putting green!
>
> With all of these actions, the golfer can gain information as to the 
> wetness or stiffness of the grass and it's direction of growth. Such 
> knowledge is openly available to all the other golfers playing in the same 
> competition. Further, being allowed to test the green of the last hole 
> played, by roughing it for instance, can actually effect the play of the 
> hole for those following.
>
> So apart from not allowing rolling a ball on the green before finishing 
> the hole I fail to see why the rule is there, struggle to find how gaining 
> such knowledge can be avoided in the first place, either on purpose or by 
> accident, and how such knowledge could be used to gain an unfair advantage 
> over other golfers unless such testing changes or improves anything on the 
> line of the put etc.
>
> It seems to me that the rule can only be applied when the golfer intends 
> to gain information from such actions and how can that be tested?
>
> Is this one of the most commonly broken rules?
>
> -- 
> Durram

16-1a forbids a player touching his line of putt, but allows it under a 
number of listed exceptions.
If a player touched his line of putt more than was necessary to perform a 
listed task, he would be penalised (e.g. Decision 16-1a/9)
These listed actions override 16-1d.
That is why marking the position of a ball on the putting green by pushing a 
tee peg into the surface, is not a penalty under 16-d.

A player may examine the state of the putting green by pressing his hand or 
foot on it to see how wet it is, provided he does not do this on his line of 
putt and provided he does not roughen or scrape the surface.

I'm not that good a golfer to know the benefits of rolling a ball, 
roughening or scraping the surface, but I would suggest that rolling a ball 
might help determine the speed of a green or a borrow; roughening might help 
determine the height of the cut which might give a clue to speed and 
scraping might help determine which way the green was cut.
Whatever the possible benefits - they are prohibited during a round and, 
both before and between rounds as well in stroke play (see Rule 7-1b).

As far lifting and cleaning a ball is concerned (16-1b), it can have little 
to do with testing the surface.

One can hardly permit a player to repair ball marks and then accuse him of 
testing the surface.

HTH
Malcolm

I want to snip something, but ...

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:04 +0000, Demetri (Durram) said...
> __________________
> 16.1 d
> d. Testing Surface During the stipulated round, a player must not test 
> the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or 
> scraping the surface.
> 
> Exception: Between the play of two holes, a player may test the surface 
> of any practice putting green and the putting green of the hole last 
> played, unless the Committee has prohibited such action (see Note 2 to 
> Rule 7-2).
> __________________
> 
> I must be missing something here because I can't see what significant 
> benefit or advantage can be achieved by 'testing the surface' of a 
> putting green in order to put.

The specific thing banned that would actually help is rolling a ball (as 
you say later on). The others are pretty irrelevant which is why they're 
basically allowed with some stipulations about intent.

> The RoG specifically forbids it but allows actions which could be 
> construed as testing the surface as long as they are not done to 
> actually knowingly 'test the surface' for instance repairing a pitch 
> mark, brushing aside loose impediments, cleaning a ball, pressing down 
> behind the ball to test how wet the green is or indeed WALKING on the 
> putting green!
> 
> With all of these actions, the golfer can gain information as to the 
> wetness or stiffness of the grass and it's direction of growth. Such 
> knowledge is openly available to all the other golfers playing in the 
> same competition. Further, being allowed to test the green of the last 
> hole played, by roughing it for instance, can actually effect the play 
> of the hole for those following.

Who roughs a green as a test? And walking on the green probably has the 
worst effect for the following players.

> So apart from not allowing rolling a ball on the green before finishing 
> the hole I fail to see why the rule is there, struggle to find how 
> gaining such knowledge can be avoided in the first place, either on 
> purpose or by accident, and how such knowledge could be used to gain an 
> unfair advantage over other golfers unless such testing changes or 
> improves anything on the line of the put etc.

Bingo! The rule is there to stop you rolling a ball. Which would be a 
pretty handy thing to do before a putt on many greens. 

> It seems to me that the rule can only be applied when the golfer intends 
> to gain information from such actions and how can that be tested?
> 
> Is this one of the most commonly broken rules?

Given that I never see anyone rolling a ball on the green before a putt, 
I'd guess no!

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

Mark Myers wrote:
> I want to snip something, but ...
> 
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:04 +0000, Demetri (Durram) said...
>> __________________
>> 16.1 d
>> d. Testing Surface During the stipulated round, a player must not test 
>> the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball or roughening or 
>> scraping the surface.
>>
>> Exception: Between the play of two holes, a player may test the surface 
>> of any practice putting green and the putting green of the hole last 
>> played, unless the Committee has prohibited such action (see Note 2 to 
>> Rule 7-2).
>> __________________
>>
>> I must be missing something here because I can't see what significant 
>> benefit or advantage can be achieved by 'testing the surface' of a 
>> putting green in order to put.
> 
> The specific thing banned that would actually help is rolling a ball (as 
> you say later on). The others are pretty irrelevant which is why they're 
> basically allowed with some stipulations about intent.
> 
>> The RoG specifically forbids it but allows actions which could be 
>> construed as testing the surface as long as they are not done to 
>> actually knowingly 'test the surface' for instance repairing a pitch 
>> mark, brushing aside loose impediments, cleaning a ball, pressing down 
>> behind the ball to test how wet the green is or indeed WALKING on the 
>> putting green!
>>
>> With all of these actions, the golfer can gain information as to the 
>> wetness or stiffness of the grass and it's direction of growth. Such 
>> knowledge is openly available to all the other golfers playing in the 
>> same competition. Further, being allowed to test the green of the last 
>> hole played, by roughing it for instance, can actually effect the play 
>> of the hole for those following.
> 
> Who roughs a green as a test? And walking on the green probably has the 
> worst effect for the following players.
> 
>> So apart from not allowing rolling a ball on the green before finishing 
>> the hole I fail to see why the rule is there, struggle to find how 
>> gaining such knowledge can be avoided in the first place, either on 
>> purpose or by accident, and how such knowledge could be used to gain an 
>> unfair advantage over other golfers unless such testing changes or 
>> improves anything on the line of the put etc.
> 
> Bingo! The rule is there to stop you rolling a ball. Which would be a 
> pretty handy thing to do before a putt on many greens. 
> 
>> It seems to me that the rule can only be applied when the golfer intends 
>> to gain information from such actions and how can that be tested?
>>
>> Is this one of the most commonly broken rules?
> 
> Given that I never see anyone rolling a ball on the green before a putt, 
> I'd guess no!
> 

Agreed, I didn't express myself as I'd intended. Rolling the ball on the 
green is very akin to practicing so is obviously not allowed.

It's the roughening and scraping bit I don't get, as how could I get 
more information about the condition of the green than by sticking 
something in it and having a good poke around like I do when I mend a 
pitch mark?

As M L Wadsworth wrote:
 > roughening might help
 > determine the height of the cut which might give a clue to speed and
 > scraping might help determine which way the green was cut.

It still takes a leap of intuition to do anything with such information 
and how it would relate to making the put.

So now I've said that at our next event everyone will be getting at me 
every time I mend a pitch mark or mark and lift my ball or brushing 
aside loose impediments with my hand, consciously ignoring the length 
and direction of growth of the grass ;-)

There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt 
Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping. 
There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or 
spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do 
with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the 
difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge 
(a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit 
to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.

-- 
D

Demetri (Durram) wrote:

> 
> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt 
> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping. 
> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or 
> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do 
> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the 
> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge 
> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit 
> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
> 

It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the 
green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this 
prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being 
'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG 
consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as 
'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the 
intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the 
ball then no breach!

See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same interpretation 
of the rule.

As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is 
visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render 
it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro 
golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!

cheers
david

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:

> Demetri (Durram) wrote:
> 
> 
>> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt
>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping.
>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or
>> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do
>> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the
>> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge
>> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit
>> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>> 
>> 
> It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
> green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
> prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
> 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
> consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
> 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the
> intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the
> ball then no breach!
> 
> See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same interpretation
> of the rule.
> 
> As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
> visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render
> it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro
> golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!
> 
> cheers
> david

Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that according 
to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus bringing a new 
ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he get away with 
that then?

Cheers - Eric

20feetputt <someone@somewhere.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
> 
> > Demetri (Durram) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt
> >> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping.
> >> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or
> >> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do
> >> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the
> >> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge
> >> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit
> >> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
> >> 
> >> 
> > It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
> > green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
> > prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
> > 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
> > consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
> > 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the
> > intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the
> > ball then no breach!
> > 
> > See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same interpretation
> > of the rule.
> > 
> > As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
> > visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render
> > it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro
> > golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!
> > 
> > cheers
> > david
> 
> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that according 
> to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus bringing a new 
> ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he get away with 
> that then?

Between the play of two holes the player is permitted to 
substitute another ball.

-- 
             Leon Chamae
             Directeur du Personnel
             Bureau de Change

"20feetputt" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message 
news:taDaj.266336$m14.13656155@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
>
>> Demetri (Durram) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt
>>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping.
>>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or
>>> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do
>>> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the
>>> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge
>>> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit
>>> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>>>
>>>
>> It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
>> green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
>> prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
>> 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
>> consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
>> 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the
>> intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the
>> ball then no breach!
>>
>> See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same interpretation
>> of the rule.
>>
>> As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
>> visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render
>> it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro
>> golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!
>>
>> cheers
>> david
>
> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that according
> to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus bringing a new
> ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he get away with
> that then?
>
> Cheers - Eric


You may always change balls before starting a hole. In effect you could 
start each hole with a new ball.

We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for 
this year:
:
:
:
I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional penalty 
for a wrong substitution, if you were to change the ball you started the 
play of a hole with (your original ball) with a new ball (a substituted 
ball), during the play of that hole.

I'll give you one to start you off:
The original ball is found to be unfit for play because it is cut (Rule 5-3)

Who can list 15 or maybe even more?

More than one situation falling under the same sub-section of a Rule will 
only be counted separately if the Rule refers to the separate situations.

Please e-mail me your answers with the correct Rule, Decision number, etc to 
win a small prize of nominal value.

I need to receive your answer no later than Sunday 6 January.
The judge's (my) decision is final.
I will then post the answers and the name of the winner.

Meanwhile, please do not post your answers here.

Merry Christmas to all
Malcolm

On 21 Dec, 00:27, "M L Wadsworth"
>
> We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for
> this year:
> :
> :
> :
> I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional penalty
> for a wrong substitution, ...



'wrong substitution'?  or just 'substitution'?

M L Wadsworth wrote:
> "20feetputt" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:taDaj.266336$m14.13656155@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
>>
>>> Demetri (Durram) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no doubt
>>>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping.
>>>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or
>>>> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do
>>>> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the
>>>> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge
>>>> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit
>>>> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
>>> green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
>>> prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
>>> 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
>>> consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
>>> 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the
>>> intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the
>>> ball then no breach!
>>>
>>> See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same interpretation
>>> of the rule.
>>>
>>> As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
>>> visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render
>>> it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro
>>> golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> david
>> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that according
>> to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus bringing a new
>> ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he get away with
>> that then?
>>
>> Cheers - Eric
> 
> 
> You may always change balls before starting a hole. In effect you could 
> start each hole with a new ball.
> 
> We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for 
> this year:
> :
> :
> :
> I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional penalty 
> for a wrong substitution, if you were to change the ball you started the 
> play of a hole with (your original ball) with a new ball (a substituted 
> ball), during the play of that hole.
> 
> I'll give you one to start you off:
> The original ball is found to be unfit for play because it is cut (Rule 5-3)
> 
> Who can list 15 or maybe even more?
> 
> More than one situation falling under the same sub-section of a Rule will 
> only be counted separately if the Rule refers to the separate situations.
> 
> Please e-mail me your answers with the correct Rule, Decision number, etc to 
> win a small prize of nominal value.
> 
> I need to receive your answer no later than Sunday 6 January.
> The judge's (my) decision is final.
> I will then post the answers and the name of the winner.
> 
> Meanwhile, please do not post your answers here.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all
> Malcolm 
> 
> 


Does this include 2008 RoG? eg. 15-2,18, 20-7c :-)
david

"johnty"  wrote in message 
news:dd668c37-81cd-4b50-9f26-26dac3220396@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Dec, 00:27, "M L Wadsworth"
>>
>> We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for
>> this year:
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional 
>> penalty
>> for a wrong substitution, ...
>
>
>
> 'wrong substitution'?  or just 'substitution'?
>

Apologies for the lack of clarity.
The substitution is allowed. i.e it does not attract a penalty under Rule 
15-2.

I also need to add that the 2004-2007 Rule book is to be used, as there is a 
change in 2008 which would effect the outcome.

Malcolm

"david s-a"  wrote in message 
news:5t1btnF1bcd71U1@mid.individual.net...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>> "20feetputt" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:taDaj.266336$m14.13656155@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
>>>
>>>> Demetri (Durram) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no 
>>>>> doubt
>>>>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping.
>>>>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or
>>>>> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do
>>>>> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the
>>>>> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge
>>>>> (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit
>>>>> to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
>>>> green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
>>>> prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
>>>> 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
>>>> consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
>>>> 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with the
>>>> intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to clean the
>>>> ball then no breach!
>>>>
>>>> See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same 
>>>> interpretation
>>>> of the rule.
>>>>
>>>> As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
>>>> visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not render
>>>> it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point out to pro
>>>> golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace their ball!
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> david
>>> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that according
>>> to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus bringing a new
>>> ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he get away with
>>> that then?
>>>
>>> Cheers - Eric
>>
>>
>> You may always change balls before starting a hole. In effect you could 
>> start each hole with a new ball.
>>
>> We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for 
>> this year:
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional 
>> penalty for a wrong substitution, if you were to change the ball you 
>> started the play of a hole with (your original ball) with a new ball (a 
>> substituted ball), during the play of that hole.
>>
>> I'll give you one to start you off:
>> The original ball is found to be unfit for play because it is cut (Rule 
>> 5-3)
>>
>> Who can list 15 or maybe even more?
>>
>> More than one situation falling under the same sub-section of a Rule will 
>> only be counted separately if the Rule refers to the separate situations.
>>
>> Please e-mail me your answers with the correct Rule, Decision number, etc 
>> to win a small prize of nominal value.
>>
>> I need to receive your answer no later than Sunday 6 January.
>> The judge's (my) decision is final.
>> I will then post the answers and the name of the winner.
>>
>> Meanwhile, please do not post your answers here.
>>
>> Merry Christmas to all
>> Malcolm
>
>
> Does this include 2008 RoG? eg. 15-2,18, 20-7c :-)
> david

Thanks David.

I have just responded to Johnty before reading your post.
The 2004-2007 Rules and Decisions are to be used, as changes in 2008 would 
affect the outcome.

Malcolm

On 21 Dec, 08:46, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> "johnty"  wrote in message
>
> news:dd668c37-81cd-4b50-9f26-26dac3220396@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 21 Dec, 00:27, "M L Wadsworth"
>
> >> We have not had a Christmas Quiz here for a few years so here is one for
> >> this year:
> >> :
> >> :
> >> :
> >> I can think of 15 circumstances when you would incur no additional
> >> penalty
> >> for a wrong substitution, ...
>
> > 'wrong substitution'?  or just 'substitution'?
>
> Apologies for the lack of clarity.
> The substitution is allowed. i.e it does not attract a penalty under Rule
> 15-2.
>
> I also need to add that the 2004-2007 Rule book is to be used, as there is a
> change in 2008 which would effect the outcome.
>


Thanks, and you answered my supplementary question without it being
asked!

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:05:32 -0500, Leon Chamae wrote:

> 20feetputt <someone@somewhere.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
>> 
>> > Demetri (Durram) wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no
>> >> doubt Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with
>> >> scraping. There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing,
>> >> scraping or spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being
>> >> scraped is to do with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage.
>> >> (What is the difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it
>> >> become a gouge (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it
>> >> all become unfit to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and
>> >> wishy washy really.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
>> > green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
>> > prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
>> > 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
>> > consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
>> > 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with
>> > the intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to
>> > clean the ball then no breach!
>> > 
>> > See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same
>> > interpretation of the rule.
>> > 
>> > As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
>> > visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not
>> > render it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point
>> > out to pro golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace
>> > their ball!
>> > 
>> > cheers
>> > david
>> 
>> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that
>> according to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus
>> bringing a new ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he
>> get away with that then?
> 
> Between the play of two holes the player is permitted to substitute
> another ball.

Argh, now I know for sure that staring at a computer screen for too long 
results in tunnel vision! My humble apologies for this total blackout. No 
more posting after midnight for me ;-)

"Demetri (Durram)"  wrote in message 
news:fkeh86$al3$1@aioe.org...
> Mark Myers wrote:
>> I want to snip something, but ...
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:04 +0000, Demetri (Durram) said...

Big Snip

> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping. 
> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or spooning 
> the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do with 
> inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the difference 
> between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge (a word sadly 
> missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit to play?) It all 
> sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>
> -- 
> D

........perhaps it is a south versus north thing and they were confusing 
bowing and scraping.............

JT

John Turner wrote:
> "Demetri (Durram)"  wrote in message 
> news:fkeh86$al3$1@aioe.org...
>> Mark Myers wrote:
>>> I want to snip something, but ...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:04 +0000, Demetri (Durram) said...
> 
> Big Snip
> 
>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping. 
>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or spooning 
>> the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do with 
>> inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the difference 
>> between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a gouge (a word sadly 
>> missing from the RoG), and when does it all become unfit to play?) It all 
>> sounds a bit superflouous and wishy washy really.
>>
>> -- 
>> D
> 
> ........perhaps it is a south versus north thing and they were confusing 
> bowing and scraping.............
> 
> JT 
> 
> 
In my special rule book it is called 'genuflexion'! Especially demanded 
by 'south' in any 'Conditions of Competition' ..and no doubt properly 
reflected in USG policy.

cheers
david

If in a stableford, one of the group putts to the hole, states he has had 
enough and asks you to knock his ball back. Would this be clased as rolling 
ball on green?
"20feetputt" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message 
news:szNaj.267100$yQ3.13602066@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:05:32 -0500, Leon Chamae wrote:
>
>> 20feetputt <someone@somewhere.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:09:22 +1100, david s-a wrote:
>>>
>>> > Demetri (Durram) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> There must have been a phase in the golf rule writing history, no
>>> >> doubt Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with
>>> >> scraping. There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing,
>>> >> scraping or spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being
>>> >> scraped is to do with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage.
>>> >> (What is the difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it
>>> >> become a gouge (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it
>>> >> all become unfit to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and
>>> >> wishy washy really.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > It is the 'intent' that is scrutinized with respect to 'testing the
>>> > green', and that is what the Rule is prohibiting. Moreover, this
>>> > prohibition is limited to certain specific methods employed...being
>>> > 'rolling a ball' or 'roughening or scraping the surface', The RoG
>>> > consider that rubbing the surface with a ball can be construed as
>>> > 'roughening'; and that is a breach only if the rubbing is done with
>>> > the intent of 'testing the green', if the intention is simply to
>>> > clean the ball then no breach!
>>> >
>>> > See Decisions 16-1d/1 thru' 6, all of which have the same
>>> > interpretation of the rule.
>>> >
>>> > As for the 'unfit ball'...it only becomes 'unfit for play' if it is
>>> > visibly cut or is clearly out of shape. Scuff marks etc. do not
>>> > render it 'unfit for play'. An issue I have regularly had to point
>>> > out to pro golfers who will seize at anything in order to replace
>>> > their ball!
>>> >
>>> > cheers
>>> > david
>>>
>>> Interesting. I recall one of the BBC commentators stating that
>>> according to Ernie Els "there's only one birdie in a ball" and thus
>>> bringing a new ball into play after having scored a birdie! How does he
>>> get away with that then?
>>
>> Between the play of two holes the player is permitted to substitute
>> another ball.
>
> Argh, now I know for sure that staring at a computer screen for too long
> results in tunnel vision! My humble apologies for this total blackout. No
> more posting after midnight for me ;-)

"dmaxey"  wrote in message 
news:ULydnd93aOUVleXaRVnyvgA@bt.com...
> If in a stableford, one of the group putts to the hole, states he has had 
> enough and asks you to knock his ball back. Would this be clased as 
> rolling ball on green?
> "20feetputt" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message

The casual knocking of the ball back to the player is not in of itself 
testing of the green, see Decision 16-1d/1. The normal terminology used by 
the ruling bodies is; "It is a question of fact", as seen in Decision 
16-1d/2. In the case that you ask about, there would be no intention on your 
part of testing the condition of the green by knocking the ball back to your 
fellow comptitor when asked to do so.

If you don't have a Decisions Book you can always access it on line at 
randa.org

Cheers

JohnT

david s-a wrote:
> John Turner wrote:
>> "Demetri (Durram)"  wrote in message 
>> news:fkeh86$al3$1@aioe.org...
>>> Mark Myers wrote:
>>>> I want to snip something, but ...
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:04 +0000, Demetri (Durram) said...
>>
>> Big Snip
>>
>>> Johnty will put me right, when somebody had a fixation with scraping. 
>>> There was an earlier thread questioning what pushing, scraping or 
>>> spooning the ball is. The other occurrence of being scraped is to do 
>>> with inspecting the golf ball for possible damage. (What is the 
>>> difference between a scratch and a scrape, when does it become a 
>>> gouge (a word sadly missing from the RoG), and when does it all 
>>> become unfit to play?) It all sounds a bit superflouous and wishy 
>>> washy really.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> D
>>
>> ........perhaps it is a south versus north thing and they were 
>> confusing bowing and scraping.............
>>
>> JT
>>
> In my special rule book it is called 'genuflexion'! Especially demanded 
> by 'south' in any 'Conditions of Competition' ..and no doubt properly 
> reflected in USG policy.
> 
> cheers
> david

Whilst genuflexing to the great putting god of the east the other day in 
contemplation of the next put, in I hasten to add a 'casual' round of 
golf ;-) , I had a quick scrape and a scratch (of the putting surface) 
to try and get some information as to how I would play my put and how it 
would travel etc.

As in the OP, I must be missing something because I gained no 
information at all except that because my knees were now wet, I 
discovered the green had been watered or it had rained recently and if 
anything gave me more questions than answers/ My playing buddies looked 
ave and asked what I was doing and I honestly replied, "I'm breaking the 
Rules!" They shook their heads and encouraged me to, "Get a f@¢¥ing move 
on!"

What information are the powers that be trying to stop me from 
discovering by 'scratching and scraping'?

Is the rule there just to reduce delays on the green, for if it is can 
they ban walking round the ball and hole in ever decreasing circles and 
plumbobbing.

-- 
Durram