As a matter of interest.....from the published summary
( http://tinyurl.com/5s9cdl ) of the 'Golf Australia' (Australia's 
ruling body') Rules of Golf and Amateur Status Committee meeting held 
Thursday April 17, 2008 at Grange Golf Club, Adelaide, South Australia.
(meeting coincided with National events at Royal Adelaide Golf Club)

Quote
3. General Thoughts for Rule Changes for 2012-2015

Golf Australia will communicate thoughts on Rule changes for 2012-2015 
to the R&A via the GA advisory member on The R&A Rules of Golf 
Committee,...(name deleted by me..):

	Root and branch review of Rule 13-4 with a view to removing
	anomalies and inconsistencies.

	In a case where a player breaches Rule 18-2 and the movement is
	only detectable by electronic means (eg television), the penalty
	for failing to replace the ball not be applied.

	If a player returns a score card which contains a score for a
	hole lower than actually taken due to a failure to include a
	penalty that they did not know had occurred, and the breach is
  	discovered prior to the competition closing, the score for the
	hole be corrected rather than the player being disqualified.

	Within the definition of 'abnormal ground condition', extend
	'burrowing animal' to 'animal'.

	As Decision 14-2/4 materially modifies Rule 14-2b, amend 14-2b
	to reflect the statement of purpose contained in 14-2/4.

	Rule 28 be expanded to allow a player to regress, under penalty,
	to where any previous stroke on the hole was played.

	Rule 25-2 be extended to allow relief through the green (with
	relevant Local Rule to limit the relief to closely-mown
	surfaces).

	Continue to pursue the issue of disallowing long putters. This
	is both to reflect concerns that the anchoring action is not
	within the spirit of the game, and also that the use of a long
	putter for measuring purposes is not in accordance with equity.
unQuote.

In my view some of these proposals seem a little naive.

Point 1 is probably valid.
Point 2 appears to negate the spirit of Rule 6-1, especially where the 
player clearly knew the ball had moved in breach of Rule 18-2.
Point 3, Rule 6-1 relevant or not?
Point 4, Malcolm will like this!!
Point 5, Fair comment.
Point 6, In my view this is nonsense! (note "...regress to where ANY 
stroke on the hole was played....."?!)
Point 7, Rule gives enough as it stands....why give more?
Point 8. Hardly likely to get up......perhaps max length of putter and 
method of measuring needs to be addressed, (eg vertical height when club 
resting on toe...a la the old 'long driving championship' method for 
drivers).

Any thoughts or comments here?

cheers
david

david s-a wrote:


> In my view some of these proposals seem a little naive.
> 
> Point 1 is probably valid.
> Point 2 appears to negate the spirit of Rule 6-1, especially where the 
> player clearly knew the ball had moved in breach of Rule 18-2.
> Point 3, Rule 6-1 relevant or not?
> Point 4, Malcolm will like this!!
> Point 5, Fair comment.
> Point 6, In my view this is nonsense! (note "...regress to where ANY 
> stroke on the hole was played....."?!)
> Point 7, Rule gives enough as it stands....why give more?
> Point 8. Hardly likely to get up......perhaps max length of putter and 
> method of measuring needs to be addressed, (eg vertical height when club 
> resting on toe...a la the old 'long driving championship' method for 
> drivers).
> 
> Any thoughts or comments here?

1. 13-4 is an arbitrary rule that needs total review. I would drop 
completely the prohibition on touching the ground or water in a hazard 
with a club or hand (especially inadvertently in the backswing), and I'd 
also drop the inability to remove loose impediments. Shots in hazards 
are hard enough for most players. I'd just prohibit "testing the 
condition", in order to stop a player probing for the depth or 
consistency of the sand etc, or using the removal of loose impediments 
to surreptitiously test for same.

Would also remove the need for some of those silly distinctions between 
natural and unnatural objects when it came to hazards.

3. I think the proposal is fair enough. Why should a player be 
disqualified for not including in his score a penalty he did not know he 
incurred? Catch 22 has got nothing on that.

4. Removing "burrowing" from "animal" is sensible and it should have 
been done years ago. A crazy definition that makes people wonder what on 
earth rules makers are sometimes thinking.

6 & 7. Agree with your comments. There's enough in Rule 28 already, and 
the proposed amendment would just make it more complicated and harder to 
understand. The Rules needs simplification, not complication.

8. There's no proof that long putters actually help players. Just ban 
putters as the measuring club for unplayable balls and relief.

-- 
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

"david s-a"  wrote in message 
news:6a12o5F35nelmU1@mid.individual.net...
> As a matter of interest.....from the published summary
> ( http://tinyurl.com/5s9cdl ) of the 'Golf Australia' (Australia's ruling 
> body') Rules of Golf and Amateur Status Committee meeting held Thursday 
> April 17, 2008 at Grange Golf Club, Adelaide, South Australia.
> (meeting coincided with National events at Royal Adelaide Golf Club)
>
> Quote
> 3. General Thoughts for Rule Changes for 2012-2015
>
> Golf Australia will communicate thoughts on Rule changes for 2012-2015 to 
> the R&A via the GA advisory member on The R&A Rules of Golf 
> Committee,...(name deleted by me..):
>
> Root and branch review of Rule 13-4 with a view to removing
> anomalies and inconsistencies.
>
> In a case where a player breaches Rule 18-2 and the movement is
> only detectable by electronic means (eg television), the penalty
> for failing to replace the ball not be applied.
>
> If a player returns a score card which contains a score for a
> hole lower than actually taken due to a failure to include a
> penalty that they did not know had occurred, and the breach is
>  discovered prior to the competition closing, the score for the
> hole be corrected rather than the player being disqualified.
>
> Within the definition of 'abnormal ground condition', extend
> 'burrowing animal' to 'animal'.
>
> As Decision 14-2/4 materially modifies Rule 14-2b, amend 14-2b
> to reflect the statement of purpose contained in 14-2/4.
>
> Rule 28 be expanded to allow a player to regress, under penalty,
> to where any previous stroke on the hole was played.
>
> Rule 25-2 be extended to allow relief through the green (with
> relevant Local Rule to limit the relief to closely-mown
> surfaces).
>
> Continue to pursue the issue of disallowing long putters. This
> is both to reflect concerns that the anchoring action is not
> within the spirit of the game, and also that the use of a long
> putter for measuring purposes is not in accordance with equity.
> unQuote.
>
> In my view some of these proposals seem a little naive.
>
> Point 1 is probably valid.
> Point 2 appears to negate the spirit of Rule 6-1, especially where the 
> player clearly knew the ball had moved in breach of Rule 18-2.
> Point 3, Rule 6-1 relevant or not?
> Point 4, Malcolm will like this!!
> Point 5, Fair comment.
> Point 6, In my view this is nonsense! (note "...regress to where ANY 
> stroke on the hole was played....."?!)
> Point 7, Rule gives enough as it stands....why give more?
> Point 8. Hardly likely to get up......perhaps max length of putter and 
> method of measuring needs to be addressed, (eg vertical height when club 
> resting on toe...a la the old 'long driving championship' method for 
> drivers).
>
> Any thoughts or comments here?
>
> cheers
> david
>
David,

The RCGA has a seat on the Joint Rules Committee. I was at an RCGA  Rules 
workshop at the beginning of this month at which we were told that the JRC 
came very close to making the change that will introduce the concept of 
regression under Rule 28, similar to that found in Rule 26 (see Decision 
28/5). We were told that they simply ran out of time with regard to a couple 
of Decisions, and to expect this change to appear in two years time via a 
Decision or at the latest in four years time in a Rule change.

As for the others, I get the feeling that the agenda for these meetings is 
established years in advance, and it would not surprise me if they already 
know exactly what changes are targeted to be introduced in four years time. 
No doubt the timetable for new Decisions is more flexible.
JohnT

John Turner wrote:

> David,
> 
> The RCGA has a seat on the Joint Rules Committee. I was at an RCGA  Rules 
> workshop at the beginning of this month at which we were told that the JRC 
> came very close to making the change that will introduce the concept of 
> regression under Rule 28, similar to that found in Rule 26 (see Decision 
> 28/5). We were told that they simply ran out of time with regard to a couple 
> of Decisions, and to expect this change to appear in two years time via a 
> Decision or at the latest in four years time in a Rule change.

Hi John,

As you obviously know, Rule 26 regression allows a player to refer back 
to the last stroke played before the ball entered the hazard. A Rule 28 
regression should follow the same principal....... The GA proposal 
appears to suggest a regression back to ANY stroke already played on the 
hole. It was that point that immediately set off a buzzer in my head. 
Perhaps it is the 'multiple drop' issue that is to be addressed...that 
would make some sense and reduce the somewhat idiotic and time wasting 
procedures involved at the moment.

> 
> As for the others, I get the feeling that the agenda for these meetings is 
> established years in advance, and it would not surprise me if they already 
> know exactly what changes are targeted to be introduced in four years time. 
> No doubt the timetable for new Decisions is more flexible.
> JohnT 
> 
>

I'm sure you are right John. I have already been told, face to face, by 
the R&A man himself (David Rickman), that most Rule changes have been 
considered through quite a number of Rules change 'cycles' before they 
see the light of day in the Rules book. In fact, I recall an answer to a 
question about long putters during the 2003 Rules briefing for officials 
at the Australian Open, where Rickman replied with words to the effect 
that "...we have been agonizing over long putters for quite some 
time!...". I distinctly got the impression at that time that a 
restriction on long putters was unlikely.

I believe the JRC only has two meetings a year, and they have enough on 
their plate to deal with at any one of them.......I don't think long 
putters are high on the list! I don't understand why people object to 
them anyway.......they take quite an unusual amount of skill to make 
them effective!

cheers
david

"david s-a"  wrote in message 
news:6a12o5F35nelmU1@mid.individual.net...
> As a matter of interest.....from the published summary
> ( http://tinyurl.com/5s9cdl ) of the 'Golf Australia' (Australia's ruling 
> body') Rules of Golf and Amateur Status Committee meeting held Thursday 
> April 17, 2008 at Grange Golf Club, Adelaide, South Australia.
> (meeting coincided with National events at Royal Adelaide Golf Club)
>

#1  Root and branch review of Rule 13-4 with a view to removing anomalies 
and inconsistencies.



I'm not sure what they mean by anomalies and inconsistencies.

How would the game be affected if 13-4 was removed altogether?



#2 In a case where a player breaches Rule 18-2 and the movement is only 
detectable by use of electronic means (eg television), the penalty for 
failing to replace the ball not be applied.



Can this really be a real problem?  If the TV spotted the ball moved, then 
the player did.

Alternatively, if a ball is seen to move by TV but the player wasn't looking 
and did not know it had moved, then as far as the Rules are concerned the 
ball did not move.



#3  If a player returns a score card which contains a score for a hole lower 
than actually taken due to failure to include a penalty that they did not 
know they had incurred, and the breach is discovered prior to the 
competition closing, the score for the hole be corrected rather than the 
player being disqualified.



An open invitation to cheat.

A player does not need to know the Rules to the level you or John do, but if 
something unusual happens, they have the facility to find out if a penalty 
is involved before they return their score card.



#4 Within the definition of abnormal ground condition, extend burrowing 
animal to animal.



This one I support, but Denis and I were not in disagreement as to whether a 
mole is a burrowing animal J



#5  As Decision 14-2/4 materially modifies Rule 14-2b, amend 14-2b to 
reflect the statement of purpose contained in 14-2/4.



Yes, but most Decisions deal with the unusual circumstance.  The Rule book 
is already more detailed than most players can cope with.





#6  Rule 28 be expanded to allow a player to regress, under penalty, to 
where any previous stroke on the hole was played.



I do not like this. It could adversely affect the pace of play.



#7  Rule 25-2 be extended to allow relief through the green (with the 
relevant Local Rule to limit the relief to closely-mown surfaces).



There are reasons why the Rule is as it is which are too long to go into 
here. Clearly the Rules Of Golf & Amateur Status Committee don't know them.



#8 Continue to pursue the issue of disallowing long putters. This is both to 
reflect the concerns that the anchoring action is not within the spirit of 
the game, and also that use of a long putter for measuring purposes is not 
in accordance with equity.



As one who has two conforming putters: one of standard length - great for 
putting; and one with an eight foot shaft - great for measuring; I can't 
agree.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:32:09 +0100, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:

>Yes, but most Decisions deal with the unusual circumstance.  The Rule book 
>is already more detailed than most players can cope with.

I cannot agree with this statement more.  I've been playing the game
15 years now and for the last 8 or so have made a conscious effort to
follow the rules as closely as I can.  I certainly don't consider
myself anything close to an expert but I still come across situations
(some hypothetical some real) where I find I am clueless on the proper
procedure.  
-- 
jvdp
Nobody fears the Chopra
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com