http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

On 19 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0500, Phil Kyle
 wrote:

>
>http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm

Are you opposed to their use carte blanche or just for
professional/amateur tournaments and championships?  
-- 
jvdp
Conspiring against Koenig since 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

John van der Pflum  writes:

> On 19 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0500, Phil Kyle
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> 
> Are you opposed to their use carte blanche or just for
> professional/amateur tournaments and championships?  

If I could wave a magic wand and make them disappear, I
would; however, if they are only used for rounds that I
am unaware of (John Q. Public's round at his course)
then I don't really care.

The acceptance by the PGA may start a move towards
greater acceptance e.g., by the PGA of America, PGA
Tour or similar.  I would prefer that did not occur.

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

On 19 Jan 2008 12:19:33 -0500, Phil Kyle
 wrote:

>John van der Pflum  writes:
>
>> On 19 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0500, Phil Kyle
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>> 
>> Are you opposed to their use carte blanche or just for
>> professional/amateur tournaments and championships?  
>
>If I could wave a magic wand and make them disappear, I
>would; however, if they are only used for rounds that I
>am unaware of (John Q. Public's round at his course)
>then I don't really care.
>
>The acceptance by the PGA may start a move towards
>greater acceptance e.g., by the PGA of America, PGA
>Tour or similar.  I would prefer that did not occur.

I agree with you on both counts, though your statement of "making them
disappear" is interesting.  How far "back in time" do you go or how
much new technology do you ignore for the sake of the game?  Do you
get rid of the graphite shaft?  The metal shaft?  Yardage markers?
Gore tex?  I don't know that there is really an answer.  

I would be interested to see the PGA's statistics on the pace of play
improvement when using the.  I think the GPS devices, if used
properly, *could* indeed speed of the pace.  Of course, people who
play slow won't be sped up much with a GPS.  
-- 
jvdp
Conspiring against Koenig since 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

John van der Pflum  writes:

> On 19 Jan 2008 12:19:33 -0500, Phil Kyle
>  wrote:
> 
> >John van der Pflum  writes:
> >
> >> On 19 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0500, Phil Kyle
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >> 
> >> Are you opposed to their use carte blanche or just for
> >> professional/amateur tournaments and championships?  
> >
> >If I could wave a magic wand and make them disappear, I
> >would; however, if they are only used for rounds that I
> >am unaware of (John Q. Public's round at his course)
> >then I don't really care.
> >
> >The acceptance by the PGA may start a move towards
> >greater acceptance e.g., by the PGA of America, PGA
> >Tour or similar.  I would prefer that did not occur.
> 
> I agree with you on both counts, though your statement of "making them
> disappear" is interesting.  How far "back in time" do you go or how
> much new technology do you ignore for the sake of the game?  

I didn't say anything about other changes or say that my
magic wand would be used for 'the sake of the game.'

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

Phil Kyle wrote:
> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> 


Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of 
Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and 
penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.

Just my 0.02¢

david

On 19 Jan 2008 16:42:46 -0500, Phil Kyle
 wrote:

>John van der Pflum  writes:
>
>> On 19 Jan 2008 12:19:33 -0500, Phil Kyle
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >John van der Pflum  writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 Jan 2008 09:52:11 -0500, Phil Kyle
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>> >> 
>> >> Are you opposed to their use carte blanche or just for
>> >> professional/amateur tournaments and championships?  
>> >
>> >If I could wave a magic wand and make them disappear, I
>> >would; however, if they are only used for rounds that I
>> >am unaware of (John Q. Public's round at his course)
>> >then I don't really care.
>> >
>> >The acceptance by the PGA may start a move towards
>> >greater acceptance e.g., by the PGA of America, PGA
>> >Tour or similar.  I would prefer that did not occur.
>> 
>> I agree with you on both counts, though your statement of "making them
>> disappear" is interesting.  How far "back in time" do you go or how
>> much new technology do you ignore for the sake of the game?  
>
>I didn't say anything about other changes or say that my
>magic wand would be used for 'the sake of the game.'

Ah, well, then why are you against the use of DME's?  
-- 
jvdp
Conspiring against Koenig since 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

david s-a  writes:

> Phil Kyle wrote:
> > http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >
> 
> 
> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.

Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
by the Rules)?

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

Phil Kyle wrote:
> david s-a  writes:
> 
>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>
>>
>> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
>> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
>> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.
> 
> Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
> by the Rules)?
> 

Phil,

'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are 
additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They are 
limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to waive a 
Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not waive any 
Rule of Golf.

  This 'condition' could, for example, be incorporated into
'pace of play' guidelines, (see Note 2 to Rule 6-7), as an issue with 
respect to the timing of individual players in an 'Out of Position' 
group subject to Committee timing......and be defined as a specific act 
which additionally and unnecessarily delays play between 
shots....despite the usual wording in the PGA hard card (ie. "Time spent 
determining yardage will count as time taken for the next shot"). A 
specific breach of the suggested 'condition' could lead to an immediate 
addition to the 'bad times' being recorded against a player, which 
normally accrue to the point where penalty strokes etc are applied.

Just a thought tho!
cheers
david

"david s-a"  wrote in message 
news:5vg4tpF1kssg4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Phil Kyle wrote:
>> david s-a  writes:
>>
>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
>>> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
>>> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.
>>
>> Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
>> by the Rules)?
>>
>
> Phil,
>
> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are 
> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They are 
> limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to waive a Rule 
> of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not waive any Rule of 
> Golf.
>
>  This 'condition' could, for example, be incorporated into
> 'pace of play' guidelines, (see Note 2 to Rule 6-7), as an issue with 
> respect to the timing of individual players in an 'Out of Position' group 
> subject to Committee timing......and be defined as a specific act which 
> additionally and unnecessarily delays play between shots....despite the 
> usual wording in the PGA hard card (ie. "Time spent determining yardage 
> will count as time taken for the next shot"). A specific breach of the 
> suggested 'condition' could lead to an immediate addition to the 'bad 
> times' being recorded against a player, which normally accrue to the point 
> where penalty strokes etc are applied.
>
> Just a thought tho!
> cheers
> david
>

David,
I agree with you to some extent.  Personally I would not care much if 
players or caddies paced out yardages so long as they were playing within 
the pace of play guidelines and not unduly delaying play.

I agree it would be within the Rules to include within the Pace of Play 
Guidelines, that the pacing out of yardages would be treated as undue delay 
when a group is on the clock.

Malcolm

david s-a  writes:

> Phil Kyle wrote:
> > david s-a  writes:
> >
> >> Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
> >> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
> >> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.
> > Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
> > by the Rules)?
> >
> 
> Phil,
> 
> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
> waive any Rule of Golf.

It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a computer.  
Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case -- Decision 6-6b/8.

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

Phil Kyle wrote:
> david s-a  writes:
>
>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>> david s-a  writes:
>>>
>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
>>>> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
>>>> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball
>>>> position.
>>> Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
>>> by the Rules)?
>>>
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
>> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
>> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
>> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
>> waive any Rule of Golf.
>
> It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
> of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
> computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case -- Decision
> 6-6b/8.

As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.
-- 
KenH



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

"Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>
> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>

Personally I don't see what the problem is with this.

What's the difference between making a caddy work out the yardage as opposed 
to obtaining it from an electronic gadget?

Good idea in my mind.


Stephen

"marush"  writes:

> Phil Kyle wrote:
> > david s-a  writes:
> >
> >> Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>> david s-a  writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
> >>>> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
> >>>> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball
> >>>> position.
> >>> Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
> >>> by the Rules)?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Phil,
> >>
> >> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
> >> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
> >> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
> >> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
> >> waive any Rule of Golf.
> >
> > It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
> > of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
> > computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case -- Decision
> > 6-6b/8.
> 
> As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.

How would requiring entry of the scores into a computer (while still 
requiring the score card to be returned properly -- the Decision says 
nothing about eliminating that step) waive any Rule?

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

david s-a  writes:

> Phil Kyle wrote:
> > david s-a  writes:
> >
> >> Phil Kyle wrote:
> >>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
> >> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
> >> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.
> > Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
> > by the Rules)?
> >
> 
> Phil,
> 
> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
> waive any Rule of Golf.
> 
>   This 'condition' could, for example, be incorporated into
> 'pace of play' guidelines, (see Note 2 to Rule 6-7), as an issue with
> respect to the timing of individual players in an 'Out of Position'
> group subject to Committee timing......and be defined as a specific
> act which additionally and unnecessarily delays play between
> shots....despite the usual wording in the PGA hard card (ie. "Time
> spent determining yardage will count as time taken for the next
> shot"). A specific breach of the suggested 'condition' could lead to
> an immediate addition to the 'bad times' being recorded against a
> player, which normally accrue to the point where penalty strokes etc
> are applied.

This reminds me, did I miss your follow-up regarding this matter:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sport.golf/msg/acaecc16b7a3386d

Or, perhaps the opportunity to ask the question never arose.

Cheers,

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

"Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
news:baz63xo30ef.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "marush"  writes:
>> >> Phil,
>> >>
>> >> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
>> >> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
>> >> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
>> >> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
>> >> waive any Rule of Golf.
>> >
>> > It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
>> > of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
>> > computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case -- Decision
>> > 6-6b/8.
>>
>> As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.
>
> How would requiring entry of the scores into a computer (while still
> requiring the score card to be returned properly -- the Decision says
> nothing about eliminating that step) waive any Rule?
>              +\    Phil    /+
>              +/    Kyle    \+


Requiring competitors to enter their scores into a computer would not waive 
a Rule of Golf but would be in conflict with them.

The Definition of the Rules of Golf states:
"The term "Rule'' includes:
a. The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in "Decisions on 
the Rules of Golf ";
b. Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 
33-1 and Appendix I;
c. Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and 
Appendix I; and
d. The specifications on clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and 
their interpretations as contained in "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and 
Balls"."

In "Decisions on the Rules of Golf " there is a Decision:
"[Title] 6-6b/8  Requirement That Score Be Entered into Computer
[Question] Q.  May a Committee, as a condition of competition, provide that 
a competitor must enter his score into a computer?
[Answer] A.  No. Such a condition would modify Rule 6-6b. However, while it 
is not permissible to penalise a player under the Rules of Golf for failing 
to enter his score into a computer, a Committee may, in order to assist in 
the administration of the competition, introduce a "club regulation" to this 
effect and provide disciplinary sanctions (e.g., ineligibility to play in 
the next club competition(s)) for failure to act in accordance with the 
regulation. "

As they say - there is more than one way to skin a cat .

Malcolm

"M L Wadsworth"  writes:

> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
> news:baz63xo30ef.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "marush"  writes:
> >> >> Phil,
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
> >> >> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
> >> >> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
> >> >> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
> >> >> waive any Rule of Golf.
> >> >
> >> > It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
> >> > of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
> >> > computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case -- Decision
> >> > 6-6b/8.
> >>
> >> As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.
> >
> > How would requiring entry of the scores into a computer (while still
> > requiring the score card to be returned properly -- the Decision says
> > nothing about eliminating that step) waive any Rule?
> >              +\    Phil    /+
> >              +/    Kyle    \+
> 
> 
> Requiring competitors to enter their scores into a computer would not waive 
> a Rule of Golf but would be in conflict with them.

It is no more in conflict with them than a condition of competition
that prohibits pacing-off a yardage.

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

"Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>
> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>
> -- 
> --------------\              /--------------
>              +\    Phil    /+
>              ++++++++++++++++
>              +/    Kyle    \+
> --------------/              \--------------

I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this was 
under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had actual 
experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, were quite 
certain that it speeded up play.

I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out the 
fines handed out.

It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at his 
yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you would 
know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the hole you 
are playing.

The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a long 
time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the decision, 
and I think that we should all respect that, and at least wait until a 
season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with criticism.

By the way, one of the longest times I timed last year was one minute and 
ten seconds to make a second putt, when the player had not lost his turn 
after the first putt. Even a SkyCaddie won't improve that!!!

Cheers

JohnT

"John Turner"  writes:

> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
> news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> >
> > http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
> >
> > -- 
> > --------------\              /--------------
> >              +\    Phil    /+
> >              ++++++++++++++++
> >              +/    Kyle    \+
> > --------------/              \--------------
> 
> I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this was 
> under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had actual 
> experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, were quite 
> certain that it speeded up play.
> 
> I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
> yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
> tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out the 
> fines handed out.
> 
> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at his 
> yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you would 
> know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the hole you 
> are playing.
> 
> The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a long 
> time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the decision, 
> and I think that we should all respect that, and at least wait until a 
> season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with criticism.

I would be more inclined to believe that this was a "golf decision"
(and worthy of respect) if the press release was not full of discussion
of the official distance-measuring device of the PGA.

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

"John Turner"  wrote in message 
news:KpudncTdUOmEDg7anZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@golden.net...
>
> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
> news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>>
>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>
>> -- 
>> --------------\              /--------------
>>              +\    Phil    /+
>>              ++++++++++++++++
>>              +/    Kyle    \+
>> --------------/              \--------------
>
> I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this 
> was under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had actual 
> experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, were quite 
> certain that it speeded up play.
>
> I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
> yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
> tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out the 
> fines handed out.
>
> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
> hole you are playing.
>
> The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a long 
> time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the 
> decision, and I think that we should all respect that, and at least wait 
> until a season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with 
> criticism.
>
> By the way, one of the longest times I timed last year was one minute and 
> ten seconds to make a second putt, when the player had not lost his turn 
> after the first putt. Even a SkyCaddie won't improve that!!!
>
> Cheers
>
> JohnT
>
Just to make certain that everyone understands, this is a PGA announcement 
that does not include the European Tour or the American Tour. For those who 
would like to evaluate it, the press release can be found at 
http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm

Cheers

John T

"Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
news:baz8x2k9xb6.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> "M L Wadsworth"  writes:
>
>> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message
>> news:baz63xo30ef.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>> > "marush"  writes:
>> >> >> Phil,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
>> >> >> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
>> >> >> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
>> >> >> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
>> >> >> waive any Rule of Golf.
>> >> >
>> >> > It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
>> >> > of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
>> >> > computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case --  
>> >> > Decision
>> >> > 6-6b/8.
>> >>
>> >> As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.
>> >
>> > How would requiring entry of the scores into a computer (while still
>> > requiring the score card to be returned properly -- the Decision says
>> > nothing about eliminating that step) waive any Rule?
>> >              +\    Phil    /+
>> >              +/    Kyle    \+
>>
>>
>> Requiring competitors to enter their scores into a computer would not 
>> waive
>> a Rule of Golf but would be in conflict with them.
>
> It is no more in conflict with them than a condition of competition
> that prohibits pacing-off a yardage.



I have not understood you.

The Rules of Golf clearly state (Decision 6-6b/8) that a condition of 
competition may not be made requiring scores to be input to a computer.

I can find nowhere in the Rules prohibiting a Committee advising players, 
within its pace of play guidelines, that they may be penalised under Rule 
6-7 if they pace out yardages while on the clock.
It would seem to be in keeping with Decisions relating to undue delay 
(9-2/16 and 22/3, for example).

In practice the issue would probably not arise, since a player will usually 
only be allowed 40 to 50 seconds to make his stroke and that would leave 
little time for pacing yardages anyway.
I am not advocating such a course of action: merely saying I believe it 
would be within the Rules.

Malcolm

"John Turner"  wrote in message 
news:1a2dnR8XnZmYBA7anZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@golden.net...
>
> "John Turner"  wrote in message 
> news:KpudncTdUOmEDg7anZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>
>> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
>> news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> --------------\              /--------------
>>>              +\    Phil    /+
>>>              ++++++++++++++++
>>>              +/    Kyle    \+
>>> --------------/              \--------------
>>
>> I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this 
>> was under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had 
>> actual experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, were 
>> quite certain that it speeded up play.
>>
>> I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
>> yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
>> tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out the 
>> fines handed out.
>>
>> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
>> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
>> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
>> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
>> hole you are playing.
>>
>> The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a long 
>> time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the 
>> decision, and I think that we should all respect that, and at least wait 
>> until a season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with 
>> criticism.
>>
>> By the way, one of the longest times I timed last year was one minute and 
>> ten seconds to make a second putt, when the player had not lost his turn 
>> after the first putt. Even a SkyCaddie won't improve that!!!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> JohnT
>>
> Just to make certain that everyone understands, this is a PGA announcement 
> that does not include the European Tour or the American Tour. For those 
> who would like to evaluate it, the press release can be found at 
> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>
> Cheers
>
> John T
John,
What is the difference between the PGA European Tour and  PGA Europro Tour?

Phil Kyle wrote:
> david s-a  writes:
> 
>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>> david s-a  writes:
>>>
>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
>>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>>>
>>>> Good on 'em. Ok as long as they also introduce a 'Condition of
>>>> Competition' that bans players from pacing out ANY distances, and
>>>> penalises any player or caddy for moving forward of his ball position.
>>> Would you support such a Condition (that is not authorized
>>> by the Rules)?
>>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
>> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
>> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
>> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
>> waive any Rule of Golf.
>>
>>   This 'condition' could, for example, be incorporated into
>> 'pace of play' guidelines, (see Note 2 to Rule 6-7), as an issue with
>> respect to the timing of individual players in an 'Out of Position'
>> group subject to Committee timing......and be defined as a specific
>> act which additionally and unnecessarily delays play between
>> shots....despite the usual wording in the PGA hard card (ie. "Time
>> spent determining yardage will count as time taken for the next
>> shot"). A specific breach of the suggested 'condition' could lead to
>> an immediate addition to the 'bad times' being recorded against a
>> player, which normally accrue to the point where penalty strokes etc
>> are applied.
> 
> This reminds me, did I miss your follow-up regarding this matter:
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sport.golf/msg/acaecc16b7a3386d
> 
> Or, perhaps the opportunity to ask the question never arose.
> 
> Cheers,
> 


I did ask the question, and the anomaly/issue was met with an air of 
surprise! After some muttering and mumbling the anomaly was acknowledged 
and noted, however, I suggest we don't hold our breath over it!

On the present subject matter, my suggestion was really only offered as 
a sort of 'quid pro quo' with respect to the concession over distance 
measuring equipment, perhaps with a mind to appease purists that abound 
over this sort of thing. Peter Dobereiner's pompous 'committee' 
characters would have had an apoplectic fit!

cheers
david

John Turner wrote:
[clip]
> 
> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at his 
> yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you would 
> know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the hole you 
> are playing.
> 

If such a 'professional' golfer is is so far off line what is the 
relevance of knowing where and how far his next shot is going to be? 
Having already hit his/her previous shot 70 yards off line, probability 
is that they wouldn't be able to hit accurately to it anyway!

It's all baloney - the game is a mental challenge more than a factual 
one and adding another toy for the boy is just pandering to the 
commercially motivated illusion that equipment is the sole improver of a 
good performance at golf rather than a combination of skill, practise 
and luck.

I am not a purist, only a realist.

-- 
Durram

"M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
message news:SsGdnX7lWuU3LA7anZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "John Turner"  wrote in message 
> news:1a2dnR8XnZmYBA7anZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>
>> "John Turner"  wrote in message 
>> news:KpudncTdUOmEDg7anZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>>
>>> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
>>> news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> --------------\              /--------------
>>>>              +\    Phil    /+
>>>>              ++++++++++++++++
>>>>              +/    Kyle    \+
>>>> --------------/              \--------------
>>>
>>> I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this 
>>> was under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had 
>>> actual experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, 
>>> were quite certain that it speeded up play.
>>>
>>> I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
>>> yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
>>> tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out the 
>>> fines handed out.
>>>
>>> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
>>> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
>>> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
>>> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
>>> hole you are playing.
>>>
>>> The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a long 
>>> time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the 
>>> decision, and I think that we should all respect that, and at least wait 
>>> until a season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with 
>>> criticism.
>>>
>>> By the way, one of the longest times I timed last year was one minute 
>>> and ten seconds to make a second putt, when the player had not lost his 
>>> turn after the first putt. Even a SkyCaddie won't improve that!!!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> JohnT
>>>
>> Just to make certain that everyone understands, this is a PGA 
>> announcement that does not include the European Tour or the American 
>> Tour. For those who would like to evaluate it, the press release can be 
>> found at http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> John T
> John,
> What is the difference between the PGA European Tour and  PGA Europro 
> Tour?
Malcolm,

The European Tour is an entity on its own. The Europro tour is a satellite 
tour run by the PGA. Some would see it as a third tier tour, coming after 
the Challenge Tour. See this link for more details.

 http://www.europrotour.com/about_the_tour.asp

As you know, I work as a rules official with the Irish Region of the PGA. 
Through this work I can and have been asked to work Europro Tour events in 
Ireland. However, this does not extend to any Challenge Tour or European 
Tour events which both are staffed entirely from within their own 
organization.

I believe you are familiar with Kevin Feeney. He worked for the PGA out of 
the Belfry, and his work latterly was with the Europro Tour. However, he 
left the PGA to go to work for the European Tour.

I hope this rambling helps answer your question.

"Durram (Demetri)"  wrote in message 
news:fn0ofs$1k5$1@aioe.org...
> John Turner wrote:
> [clip]
>>
>> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
>> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
>> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
>> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
>> hole you are playing.
>>
>
> If such a 'professional' golfer is is so far off line what is the 
> relevance of knowing where and how far his next shot is going to be? 
> Having already hit his/her previous shot 70 yards off line, probability is 
> that they wouldn't be able to hit accurately to it anyway!
>
> It's all baloney - the game is a mental challenge more than a factual one 
> and adding another toy for the boy is just pandering to the commercially 
> motivated illusion that equipment is the sole improver of a good 
> performance at golf rather than a combination of skill, practise and luck.
>
> I am not a purist, only a realist.
>
> -- 
> Durram

Sorry Demetri, but TW hits it 70 yards off line from time to time, and I can 
guarantee you that the next thing he wants to know is how far do I have to 
hit this next shot. And that is part of what people pay good money to see - 
how well he recovers after hitting it in the boondocks.

When I see a player in the next fairway staring at his yardage book, I 
empathize with him. When I do the same on my home course it is not too 
difficult to do the geometry and figure out the approximate yardage based on 
the familiar landmarks that I can see (not to mention past experience with 
that locality). But the professional in my story, and in PGA events we are 
refering to club professionals, teaching pros and assistants, is playing on 
a strange course. What is wrong with giving him the information in seconds 
that he will take much longer to determine by walking all over the place 
trying to sort it out. By the way, most of these guys do not have caddies. 
It will speed up play.

JohnT

"John Turner"  wrote in message 
news:ccGdnQ3bR5rliQnanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@golden.net...
>
> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
> message news:SsGdnX7lWuU3LA7anZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "John Turner"  wrote in message 
>> news:1a2dnR8XnZmYBA7anZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>>
>>> "John Turner"  wrote in message 
>>> news:KpudncTdUOmEDg7anZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@golden.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:bazr6gdlvfo.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> --------------\              /--------------
>>>>>              +\    Phil    /+
>>>>>              ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>              +/    Kyle    \+
>>>>> --------------/              \--------------
>>>>
>>>> I was at a PGA Rules meeting ten months ago when we were told that this 
>>>> was under serious consideration. We discussed it, and those who had 
>>>> actual experience, such as the EuroPro Tour rules officials present, 
>>>> were quite certain that it speeded up play.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it is necessary or appropriate to then ban pacing out 
>>>> yardages in any circumstances. The pace of play conditions in PGA 
>>>> tournaments are stringent enough to get the job done. Just check out 
>>>> the fines handed out.
>>>>
>>>> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
>>>> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
>>>> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
>>>> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
>>>> hole you are playing.
>>>>
>>>> The PGA tours around the world have had this under discussion for a 
>>>> long time, certainly in excess of a year. They have not rushed into the 
>>>> decision, and I think that we should all respect that, and at least 
>>>> wait until a season has come and gone, and not jump in feet first with 
>>>> criticism.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, one of the longest times I timed last year was one minute 
>>>> and ten seconds to make a second putt, when the player had not lost his 
>>>> turn after the first putt. Even a SkyCaddie won't improve that!!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> JohnT
>>>>
>>> Just to make certain that everyone understands, this is a PGA 
>>> announcement that does not include the European Tour or the American 
>>> Tour. For those who would like to evaluate it, the press release can be 
>>> found at http://www.pga.info/News/40870625.htm
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> John T
>> John,
>> What is the difference between the PGA European Tour and  PGA Europro 
>> Tour?
> Malcolm,
>
> The European Tour is an entity on its own. The Europro tour is a satellite 
> tour run by the PGA. Some would see it as a third tier tour, coming after 
> the Challenge Tour. See this link for more details.
>
> http://www.europrotour.com/about_the_tour.asp
>
> As you know, I work as a rules official with the Irish Region of the PGA. 
> Through this work I can and have been asked to work Europro Tour events in 
> Ireland. However, this does not extend to any Challenge Tour or European 
> Tour events which both are staffed entirely from within their own 
> organization.
>
> I believe you are familiar with Kevin Feeney. He worked for the PGA out of 
> the Belfry, and his work latterly was with the Europro Tour. However, he 
> left the PGA to go to work for the European Tour.
>
> I hope this rambling helps answer your question.

Thanks John

John Turner wrote:
> "Durram (Demetri)"  wrote in message 
> news:fn0ofs$1k5$1@aioe.org...
>> John Turner wrote:
>> [clip]
>>> It is a sad sight as a Rules Official to see a player standing in an 
>>> adjacent fairway, having hit his tee shot 70 yards off line, staring at 
>>> his yardage book. If you have ever seen a professional yardage book you 
>>> would know that it is pretty much useless if you stray much beyond the 
>>> hole you are playing.
>>>
>> If such a 'professional' golfer is is so far off line what is the 
>> relevance of knowing where and how far his next shot is going to be? 
>> Having already hit his/her previous shot 70 yards off line, probability is 
>> that they wouldn't be able to hit accurately to it anyway!
>>
>> It's all baloney - the game is a mental challenge more than a factual one 
>> and adding another toy for the boy is just pandering to the commercially 
>> motivated illusion that equipment is the sole improver of a good 
>> performance at golf rather than a combination of skill, practise and luck.
>>
>> I am not a purist, only a realist.
>>
>> -- 
>> Durram
> 
> Sorry Demetri, but TW hits it 70 yards off line from time to time, and I can 
> guarantee you that the next thing he wants to know is how far do I have to 
> hit this next shot. And that is part of what people pay good money to see - 
> how well he recovers after hitting it in the boondocks.
> 
> When I see a player in the next fairway staring at his yardage book, I 
> empathize with him. When I do the same on my home course it is not too 
> difficult to do the geometry and figure out the approximate yardage based on 
> the familiar landmarks that I can see (not to mention past experience with 
> that locality). But the professional in my story, and in PGA events we are 
> refering to club professionals, teaching pros and assistants, is playing on 
> a strange course. What is wrong with giving him the information in seconds 
> that he will take much longer to determine by walking all over the place 
> trying to sort it out. By the way, most of these guys do not have caddies. 
> It will speed up play.
> 
> JohnT 
> 
> 

You misunderestimate me, I'm not against the idea and have enjoyed 
sharing the information one of the gizmos gave out during a recent round 
with our very own MW at Aldwickbury.

Hopefully, using the range finders will speed up play t the benefit of 
both participants and spectators. I can remember where I read it but 
during a recent tournament weren't the stragglers on the cusp of the cut 
not allowed to play during rounds 3 & 4 but paid anyway meaning that 
they didn't have the chance to improve? I presume this was because the 
organisers didn't think they would all get round but I bet everyone was 
a bit peed off with the decision.

However, as I have previously said in this and other threads re: 
strokesavers etc. I don't think the info is of much value because as you 
yourself point out "TW hits it 70 yards off line from time to time", and 
so do I frequently - assuming I actually make the 70 yard mark!

I agree that at the pro end of the spectrum there is a great level of 
consistency in iron play but at the average amateur end such information 
is wasted.

Does the introduction of such equipment signal the death knell of the 
Strokesaver (TM), I wonder? I bet they're not too pleased though they 
may still get some claw back from the course mapping.

Anyway, despite it being fun to have such accurate information I would 
hate to end up relying on it and prefer the enjoyment of trying to 
guesstimate the yardage, how to play the shot and then discovering the 
consequences by more natural means

-- 
Durram

"M L Wadsworth"  writes:

> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message 
> news:baz8x2k9xb6.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> > "M L Wadsworth"  writes:
> >
> >> "Phil Kyle"  wrote in message
> >> news:baz63xo30ef.fsf@alpha.luckytrout.com...
> >> > "marush"  writes:
> >> >> >> Phil,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 'Conditions' don't have to be authorized by the rules....they are
> >> >> >> additional to the rules....and are a requirement of Rule 33-1. They
> >> >> >> are limited only to the extent that the Committee has no power to
> >> >> >> waive a Rule of Golf......such a 'condition' as suggested does not
> >> >> >> waive any Rule of Golf.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It would seem then that the Committee could adopt a condition
> >> >> > of competition requiring players to enter their scores into a
> >> >> > computer. Yet, the ruling bodies say that is not the case --  
> >> >> > Decision
> >> >> > 6-6b/8.
> >> >>
> >> >> As Malcom said they cannot waive a Rule of Golf, in this case 6-6b.
> >> >
> >> > How would requiring entry of the scores into a computer (while still
> >> > requiring the score card to be returned properly -- the Decision says
> >> > nothing about eliminating that step) waive any Rule?
> >> >              +\    Phil    /+
> >> >              +/    Kyle    \+
> >>
> >>
> >> Requiring competitors to enter their scores into a computer would not 
> >> waive
> >> a Rule of Golf but would be in conflict with them.
> >
> > It is no more in conflict with them than a condition of competition
> > that prohibits pacing-off a yardage.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not understood you.
> 
> The Rules of Golf clearly state (Decision 6-6b/8) that a condition of 
> competition may not be made requiring scores to be input to a computer.
> 
> I can find nowhere in the Rules prohibiting a Committee advising players, 
> within its pace of play guidelines, that they may be penalised under Rule 
> 6-7 if they pace out yardages while on the clock.

'Advising players' isn't what david s-a was proposing as I recall; rather,
he was proposing a condition prohibiting such pacing.

Should we advise the players of all types of behavior that might lead
them to a breach of Rule 6-7?

-- 
--------------\              /--------------
              +\    Phil    /+ 
              ++++++++++++++++
              +/    Kyle    \+ 
--------------/              \--------------

Demetri (Durram) in <fn25bv$gbr$1@aioe.org>:

>I agree that at the pro end of the spectrum there is a great level of 
>consistency in iron play but at the average amateur end such information 
>is wasted.

Yep, and the pro's abilities (+ demands + (finacial) expectations) might be
worth the use of range finders, different to us.

>Does the introduction of such equipment signal the death knell of the 
>Strokesaver (TM), I wonder? I bet they're not too pleased though they 
>may still get some claw back from the course mapping.

Technological advancement demands it's tribute...

>Anyway, despite it being fun to have such accurate information I would 
>hate to end up relying on it and prefer the enjoyment of trying to 
>guesstimate the yardage, how to play the shot and then discovering the 
>consequences by more natural means

I fully agree to this point - except for FOA2008, where poor overambitious
me wants to use any possible source, Strokesaver an/or GPS ;->

Ciao,

Paul, remembering my confusion in Hawkstone Park, 
1) between mixed distance indications to begin and center of the green 
plus 
2) between numbers in yards on the cards and club selection criteria in
meters in brain 1.0 ;->

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:

> Ciao,
> 
> Paul, remembering my confusion in Hawkstone Park, 
> 1) between mixed distance indications to begin and center of the green 
> plus 
> 2) between numbers in yards on the cards and club selection criteria in
> meters in brain 1.0 ;->

Paul,

I think you should be asking for strokesaver books for both courses
of FoA in advance so you have ample time to convert to metric.

But then again those funny yardage measurements didn't stop you last year!!


-- 
Benway

Hi Carl,

Benway in :

>> Paul, remembering my confusion in Hawkstone Park, 
>> 1) between mixed distance indications to begin and center of the green 
>> plus 
>> 2) between numbers in yards on the cards and club selection criteria in
>> meters in brain 1.0 ;->
>
>Paul,
>
>I think you should be asking for strokesaver books for both courses
>of FoA in advance so you have ample time to convert to metric.

You _really_ think I'm overambigious, don't you? ;->
OTOH, I found the courses in Google Earth...

>But then again those funny yardage measurements didn't stop you last year!!

At least I had a hard time on the first hole, emailing the ball over the
green with a 7 iron, IIRC.

After that, I quit relying on the yardages. Remember, I still had you as my
playing partner + my precious brandnew driver + putter...

Looking forward to FOA!

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten in <fnepf7$ad3$02$1@news.t-online.com>:

>overambigious

Pardon me: overambitious, hopefully.

Poor me,

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Paul Schmitz-Josten in <fnepf7$ad3$02$1@news.t-online.com>:
> 
>> overambigious
> 
> Pardon me: overambitious, hopefully.
> 
> Poor me,
> 
> Paul

I was there too ... you were right the first time ;-)

-- 
Durram   d:-)

Demetri (Durram) in <fnkrot$enk$1@aioe.org>:

(overambigious vs. overambitious)

>I was there too ... you were right the first time ;-)

Would you mind to discuss this later?







































i.e. in a late hour of April 20th?

Ciao,

Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension

(1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Demetri (Durram) in <fnkrot$enk$1@aioe.org>:
> 
> (overambigious vs. overambitious)
> 
>> I was there too ... you were right the first time ;-)
> 
> Would you mind to discuss this later?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. in a late hour of April 20th?
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension
> 
> (1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"


I rest my case! I've got more chance understanding Japanese poetry.

Paul - you are a legend in your own time :-)

-- 
D

Demetri (Durram) in <fnms6j$tj8$1@aioe.org>:

>> Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension
>> 
>> (1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"
>
>
>I rest my case! I've got more chance understanding Japanese poetry.

Imagine:
Let comprehension be a fluid flowing through a hose into someone's head.
Now this poor lad is standing on the hose compressing it.
What will happen? No comprehension will arrive in his head.
So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.

It's easy, isn't it?

>Paul - you are a legend in your own time :-)

Want an autograph? On a valuable driver? On a flagstick?

Ciao,

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Demetri (Durram) in <fnms6j$tj8$1@aioe.org>:
> 
>>> Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension
>>>
>>> (1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"
>>
>> I rest my case! I've got more chance understanding Japanese poetry.
> 
> Imagine:
> Let comprehension be a fluid flowing through a hose into someone's head.
> Now this poor lad is standing on the hose compressing it.
> What will happen? No comprehension will arrive in his head.
> So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.
> 
> It's easy, isn't it?


I've had some surrealistic moments in my life but idiomatic and 
metaphorical use of the German language takes the biscuit! (whatever 
that means)

-- 
D

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:36:02 +0000, "Demetri (Durram)"
 wrote:

> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> > Demetri (Durram) in <fnms6j$tj8$1@aioe.org>:
> > 
> >>> Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension
> >>>
> >>> (1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"
> >>
> >> I rest my case! I've got more chance understanding Japanese poetry.
> > 
> > Imagine:
> > Let comprehension be a fluid flowing through a hose into someone's head.
> > Now this poor lad is standing on the hose compressing it.
> > What will happen? No comprehension will arrive in his head.
> > So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.
> > 
> > It's easy, isn't it?
> 
> 
> I've had some surrealistic moments in my life but idiomatic and 
> metaphorical use of the German language takes the biscuit! (whatever 
> that means)

Sounds like something from the old WWII movies, when people delivered
secret messages over the BBC:
"If you're standing on the hose, then the grey-haired old woman who
lives in Drury Lane will move the pencil from the pickle jar on the
kitchen table to the left of the restaurant just off the airstrip in
Lyons....ooopsie....just off the main street of Birmingham.  Sorry,
boys."
Translation:
"Weather permitting, the troops ships will leave Liverpool next
Tuesday evening on the outgoing tide."

Demetri (Durram) wrote:
> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
>> Demetri (Durram) in <fnms6j$tj8$1@aioe.org>:
>>
>>>> Paul, "standing on the hose" (1) in incomprehension
>>>>
>>>> (1) translating literally from German "auf dem Schlauch stehen"
>>>
>>> I rest my case! I've got more chance understanding Japanese poetry.
>>
>> Imagine:
>> Let comprehension be a fluid flowing through a hose into someone's head.
>> Now this poor lad is standing on the hose compressing it.
>> What will happen? No comprehension will arrive in his head.
>> So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.
>>
>> It's easy, isn't it?
> 
> 
> I've had some surrealistic moments in my life but idiomatic and 
> metaphorical use of the German language takes the biscuit! (whatever 
> that means)
> 


When the seagulls follow the trawler......

-- 
Benway

"Benway"  wrote in message 
news:13q1i49g28qop01@corp.supernews.com...
>
> When the seagulls follow the trawler......
> -- 
> Benway
>
He was French, n'est pas.

Demetri (Durram) in <fno2ni$6fa$1@aioe.org>:

>Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
>> So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.
>> 
>> It's easy, isn't it?
>
>I've had some surrealistic moments in my life but idiomatic and 
>metaphorical use of the German language takes the biscuit! (whatever 
>that means)

Do you mean to say "Es geht mir auf den Keks"?
(Keks = biscuit)

But no, that is "It's annoying me"...

Just kidding,

Paul

Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
> Demetri (Durram) in <fno2ni$6fa$1@aioe.org>:
> 
>> Paul Schmitz-Josten wrote:
>>> So, if you "stand on the hose" you do not unterstand.
>>>
>>> It's easy, isn't it?
>> I've had some surrealistic moments in my life but idiomatic and 
>> metaphorical use of the German language takes the biscuit! (whatever 
>> that means)
> 
> Do you mean to say "Es geht mir auf den Keks"?
> (Keks = biscuit)
> 
> But no, that is "It's annoying me"...
> 
> Just kidding,
> 
> Paul

What are you on? Kecks = trousers up here in t'North! First it's socks 
and now it's trousers - whatever next I fear to think :-)

-- 
D