As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just 
misinterpretations.

Here are two from the last seven days:

Wednesday at a golf dinner I was asked in all seriousness:
"Is it true that you may tap in a short putt using the toe of the putter 
provided you don't have both feet on the ground?"

Clearly someone had been winding up this inexperienced golfer.

Last night a low handicapped golfer checked with me because he had been 
disqualified at the weekend by the Committee from the first round of his 
Club Championship because he had failed to record his own score for a hole 
in the "marker" column of the card he was marking.  His own score card was 
correct!!

Please pass on any new ones you hear.

"M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
message news:aaqdnW0xIc6HUTzV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
> As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
> These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just 
> misinterpretations.
>
> Here are two from the last seven days:
>
> Wednesday at a golf dinner I was asked in all seriousness:
> "Is it true that you may tap in a short putt using the toe of the putter 
> provided you don't have both feet on the ground?"
>
> Clearly someone had been winding up this inexperienced golfer.
>
> Last night a low handicapped golfer checked with me because he had been 
> disqualified at the weekend by the Committee from the first round of his 
> Club Championship because he had failed to record his own score for a hole 
> in the "marker" column of the card he was marking.  His own score card was 
> correct!!
>
> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
>
>

It is not new by any means, but I was asked by two professionals during last 
weeks event if it was ok to hole a putt with one hand while holding the flag 
in the other. Of course we all know that it depends which hand is holding 
the umbrella.

JohnT

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:44:32 +0100, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:

> As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
> These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just 
> misinterpretations.
> 
> Here are two from the last seven days:
> 
> Wednesday at a golf dinner I was asked in all seriousness:
> "Is it true that you may tap in a short putt using the toe of the putter 
> provided you don't have both feet on the ground?"
> 
> Clearly someone had been winding up this inexperienced golfer.
> 
> Last night a low handicapped golfer checked with me because he had been 
> disqualified at the weekend by the Committee from the first round of his 
> Club Championship because he had failed to record his own score for a hole 
> in the "marker" column of the card he was marking.  His own score card was 
> correct!!
> 
> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
> 
My barber, who is a very low hcp. golfer, and has staged his own
tournaments, today posed a question to me concerning a ball on a cart
path up against a low curb/kerb, making it impossible or nearly so to
hit in the usual fashion.
He asked me about taking relief.  I showed him how to determine the
NPR, with which process he was quite conversant.  The next move
stunned me -- he said he had then used his prerogative to drop the
ball anywhere he wanted in back of the ball, keeping the NPR between
him and the flagstick.
He was appalled to hear that that is not legitimate with a free drop.
I discussed Rule 28 with him.  He replied, "Well, that ball was
unplayable, so I get a free drop,etc."
I wish I had had a rule book with me.
He accepted my version at the end of the conversation, and I still got
a decent haircut!

Peter

M L Wadsworth wrote:
>
> 
> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
> 
>

Last year I 'did rules' for the national indigenous golf 
championships...which in itself was a bit of a circus, many player's 
golf swings looked something akin to persuing a 'roo with a spear!!

Our drought had left many shallow water hazards devoid of any water and 
therefore not obviously a hazard of any kind.

"wot about the red stakes boss...thass free drop innit?

:-)

cheers
david

M L Wadsworth in :

>As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
>These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just 
>misinterpretations.

What about this:
"According to the RoG a group must not exceed four players."
(stated by our marshall who became _very_ angry when I collected five
players behind two slow fourballs for the last four holes).

This one may not find your rigorous approval:
"A player who doesn't mark his ball on the green will be penalised when his
competitor hits this ball." (a common belief among unexperienced players
who avoid to mark their balls but are anxious to harm the other player when
putting, but I also heard it from a pro commenting a PGA tournament.)

Ciao,

Paul

"John Turner"  wrote in message 
news:q9kok.26688$j7.472526@news.indigo.ie...
>
> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
> message news:aaqdnW0xIc6HUTzV4p2dnAA@bt.com...
>> As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
>> These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just 
>> misinterpretations.
>>
>> Here are two from the last seven days:
>>
>> Wednesday at a golf dinner I was asked in all seriousness:
>> "Is it true that you may tap in a short putt using the toe of the putter 
>> provided you don't have both feet on the ground?"
>>
>> Clearly someone had been winding up this inexperienced golfer.
>>
>> Last night a low handicapped golfer checked with me because he had been 
>> disqualified at the weekend by the Committee from the first round of his 
>> Club Championship because he had failed to record his own score for a 
>> hole in the "marker" column of the card he was marking.  His own score 
>> card was correct!!
>>
>> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
>>
>>
>
> It is not new by any means, but I was asked by two professionals during 
> last weeks event if it was ok to hole a putt with one hand while holding 
> the flag in the other. Of course we all know that it depends which hand is 
> holding the umbrella.
>
> JohnT
>

Thanks John.
I was surprised I did not have that one listed as it is fairly common - 
along with:
you can hole a putt with one hand while holding the flagstick with the other 
providing the flagstick is not touching the surface of the putting green.
I will add them both.

Regards and all the best in Canada,

Malcolm

"Peter Strauss"  wrote in message 
news:8bm4a49nuutdm4vt57felstq8n3ce2hcvs@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:44:32 +0100, "M L Wadsworth"
>  wrote:
>
>> As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
>> These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just
>> misinterpretations.
>>
>> Here are two from the last seven days:
>>
>> Wednesday at a golf dinner I was asked in all seriousness:
>> "Is it true that you may tap in a short putt using the toe of the putter
>> provided you don't have both feet on the ground?"
>>
>> Clearly someone had been winding up this inexperienced golfer.
>>
>> Last night a low handicapped golfer checked with me because he had been
>> disqualified at the weekend by the Committee from the first round of his
>> Club Championship because he had failed to record his own score for a 
>> hole
>> in the "marker" column of the card he was marking.  His own score card 
>> was
>> correct!!
>>
>> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
>>
> My barber, who is a very low hcp. golfer, and has staged his own
> tournaments, today posed a question to me concerning a ball on a cart
> path up against a low curb/kerb, making it impossible or nearly so to
> hit in the usual fashion.
> He asked me about taking relief.  I showed him how to determine the
> NPR, with which process he was quite conversant.  The next move
> stunned me -- he said he had then used his prerogative to drop the
> ball anywhere he wanted in back of the ball, keeping the NPR between
> him and the flagstick.
> He was appalled to hear that that is not legitimate with a free drop.
> I discussed Rule 28 with him.  He replied, "Well, that ball was
> unplayable, so I get a free drop,etc."
> I wish I had had a rule book with me.
> He accepted my version at the end of the conversation, and I still got
> a decent haircut!
>
> Peter

Thank you, Peter.
It is amazing the confusion there is over taking relief.
I already have on my list:
#17.  Once a 7 iron has been used to determine the NPR the player=s driver 
cannot be used to measure one club-length thereafter.

#19. If a ball is unplayable in bushes, the player measures two club-lengths 
from the outside of the bush.

#34. The Nearest Point of Relief has to be in a playable position.

I will add yours - thank you:
When taking relief without penalty, having determined the Nearest Point of 
Relief the player must drop a ball behind the Nearest Point of Relief, 
keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball 
is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be 
dropped.

Regards,
Malcolm

"david s-a"  wrote in message 
news:6gfhgeFfkk8cU1@mid.individual.net...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please pass on any new ones you hear.
>>
>
> Last year I 'did rules' for the national indigenous golf 
> championships...which in itself was a bit of a circus, many player's golf 
> swings looked something akin to persuing a 'roo with a spear!!
>
> Our drought had left many shallow water hazards devoid of any water and 
> therefore not obviously a hazard of any kind.
>
> "wot about the red stakes boss...thass free drop innit?
>
> :-)
>
> cheers
> david
>
>
Wonderful!!
But it is always worth checking if he has any water hazards on his course.
Until the other year, we had no water hazards on our course and I am sure a 
good number of members would not have known what to do it they played an 
away course and their ball went in one.

regards,
Malcolm

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:6gjbv0Fg8ho2U1@mid.individual.net...
>M L Wadsworth in :
>
>>As some will know, I collect "Rules myths".
>>These are beliefs in the Rules that are so way out as not to be just
>>misinterpretations.
>
> What about this:
> "According to the RoG a group must not exceed four players."
> (stated by our marshall who became _very_ angry when I collected five
> players behind two slow fourballs for the last four holes).


I think I will add that one. Particularly as a lady golfer from our club 
phoned me only the other day, complaining that her and three friends had 
been disqualified from the Medal for playing as group of four.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember being told that our club 
Medals had to be played in twos or threes but I never found it written down 
anywhere.
I suggested the lady member ask whoever had disqualified her, to show her 
where it was written!

Golfers tend to confuse Conditions of Competitons with the 34 Rules of Golf.

>
> This one may not find your rigorous approval:
> "A player who doesn't mark his ball on the green will be penalised when 
> his
> competitor hits this ball." (a common belief among unexperienced players
> who avoid to mark their balls but are anxious to harm the other player 
> when
> putting, but I also heard it from a pro commenting a PGA tournament.)
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Thanks, Paul.  I think I will include that one too - its not just a 
misinterpretation.
The player has got to have not read the Rule book to think that one up!

Regards,
Malcolm
.

M L Wadsworth wrote:

> I was surprised I did not have that one listed as it is fairly common - 
> along with:
> you can hole a putt with one hand while holding the flagstick with the other 
> providing the flagstick is not touching the surface of the putting green.
> I will add them both.

I'd have thought the most common flagstick myth was not being allowed to 
have the flagstick attended when your ball is off the green.

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

"Colin Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:OHppk.28681$IK1.25867@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>
>> I was surprised I did not have that one listed as it is fairly common - 
>> along with:
>> you can hole a putt with one hand while holding the flagstick with the 
>> other providing the flagstick is not touching the surface of the putting 
>> green.
>> I will add them both.
>
> I'd have thought the most common flagstick myth was not being allowed to 
> have the flagstick attended when your ball is off the green.
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Colin Wilson
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
> Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

That one happens to be #1 on my list so it was probably the first one I 
thought of, though I have made no attempt to sort the myths by prevalence. 
Thanks anyway.

regards,

Malcolm

M L Wadsworth in :

(/me:)
>> "According to the RoG a group must not exceed four players."
>> (stated by our marshall who became _very_ angry when I collected five
>> players behind two slow fourballs for the last four holes).
>
>I think I will add that one. Particularly as a lady golfer from our club 
>phoned me only the other day, complaining that her and three friends had 
>been disqualified from the Medal for playing as group of four.
>Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember being told that our club 
>Medals had to be played in twos or threes but I never found it written down 
>anywhere.

I would have thought that in tournaments the groups are established by the
committee(?) - I've never seen anything else here!

>I suggested the lady member ask whoever had disqualified her, to show her 
>where it was written!
>
>Golfers tend to confuse Conditions of Competitons with the 34 Rules of Golf.

I've seen the "fourball" limitation written down in several club
regulations (not to confuse them with the local rules) - I've yet to see
what our club's regulations say.

>> "A player who doesn't mark his ball on the green will be penalised when 
>> his
>> competitor hits this ball." (a common belief among unexperienced players
>> who avoid to mark their balls but are anxious to harm the other player 
>> when
>> putting, but I also heard it from a pro commenting a PGA tournament.)

>Thanks, Paul.  I think I will include that one too - its not just a 
>misinterpretation.
>The player has got to have not read the Rule book to think that one up!

As for the beginners, they may be confused by the multitude of rules and
unsure how to behave with respect to pace of play and etiquette on the
green. My personal guideline is "If you'd have to ask if your ball disturbs
a fellow player, just pick it up without asking."

As for the pro, he may be so deep in the habit (Gentlemen's agreement?) 
of marking each ball on the green that he sees it as his duty rather than
his voluntary decision.

BTW: If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?

Ciao,

Paul

Malcolm

Where have they put a water hazard in? The only place I can think of would 
be on the right of the 18th by the willow tree - always seemed to get very 
wet there!

-- 
Andy Neal
Please remove the GREENCARD when you reply

> Wonderful!!
> But it is always worth checking if he has any water hazards on his course.
> Until the other year, we had no water hazards on our course and I am sure 
> a good number of members would not have known what to do it they played an 
> away course and their ball went in one.
>
> regards,
> Malcolm
>

"Andy Neal"  wrote in message 
news:o8WdnbJLVrdhMTvVnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com...
> Malcolm
>
> Where have they put a water hazard in? The only place I can think of would 
> be on the right of the 18th by the willow tree - always seemed to get very 
> wet there!
>
> -- 
> Andy Neal
> Please remove the GREENCARD when you reply
>
Hi Andy,
Good to know you are still out there!

You will recall that along the right side of the 5th (a right-angled dog-leg 
left), was an overgrown area under which was hidden a shallow ditch.

I remember when I first hit a ball into that area, enquiring if it was a 
water hazard and being told by long-standing members that it had never been 
so in their  time at the club.

The "ditch" has been cleared out and marked as a lateral water hazard.  I 
think it was the head greenkeeper's idea (sorry - course manager!).

While it looks tidier, it is easy to play from the hazard and dropping out 
is a near impossibility if one follows the Rules.
Any ball dropped to the right of the hazard would be unplayable and any ball 
dropped to the left is likely to be nearer the hole than where the ball 
crossed the margin of the hazard (not that that would worry our members!).

Regards,
Malcolm

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:g86589$fab$00$2@news.t-online.com...
>M L Wadsworth in :
>
snip

> BTW: If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
> and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

It depends whether we are talking match play or stroke play.

In match play, a player left with a short putt should mark and lift his 
ball, since the order of play is much stricter.
He should **never** ask to hole out.
Usually such putts are given anyway and if not, the player can try several 
wheezes to try and persuade his opponent to give it, like asking "do you 
want that marked?"; fumbling unnecessarily for a ball marker, etc.

In stroke play it is quite different. If you are left with a short putt 
which obviously will require the ball to be marked and lifted before a 
fellow-competitor can play, you may either mark and lift your ball or putt 
it out (Rule 22-1b).  You do not even have to ask although some competitors 
feel more comfortable doing so.

When you ask if competitors may be guilty of an agreement to waive the 
rules, you may be thinking of the situation where a competitor whose ball 
lies downhill from the hole could be accused of leaving his ball where it is 
to assist a fellow-competitor if the fellow-competitor is going to be 
playing from off the putting green downhill to the hole.  That could be seen 
as assisting the fellow-competitor and to be a breach of 22-1b (last 
paragraph).

HTH,

Malcolm

M L Wadsworth in :

>> BTW: If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
>> and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?

>It depends whether we are talking match play or stroke play.
>
>In match play, a player left with a short putt should mark and lift his 
>ball, since the order of play is much stricter.
>He should **never** ask to hole out.

Agreed - I am talking about stroke play.

>In stroke play it is quite different. If you are left with a short putt 
>which obviously will require the ball to be marked and lifted before a 
>fellow-competitor can play, you may either mark and lift your ball or putt 
>it out (Rule 22-1b).  You do not even have to ask although some competitors 
>feel more comfortable doing so.

Strictly looking at the rules, I disagree. In both 22-1 and 22-2, 
the wording is:
|In stroke play, a player required to lift his ball may play first rather 
|than lift the ball.

Therefore, unless another player explicitely requests A to lift the ball,
he must not play first. He may of course omit to mark his ball, wait for
the request and then hole out following the cited rule.

It is also clear that a casual breach of 10-2 c is not penalised in stroke
play. The question is if the Q&A cited above creates a breach of 1-3 by
_agreement_, without looking at assists or the like.

(and I know that it is quite hypothetic because everybody does so)

But maybe it is another rules myth:
"The RoG permit to hole out without respecting the proper sequence if you
only are polite enough to ask for permission of the other players."

>When you ask if competitors may be guilty of an agreement to waive the 
>rules, you may be thinking of the situation where a competitor whose ball 
>lies downhill from the hole could be accused of leaving his ball where it is 
>to assist a fellow-competitor if the fellow-competitor is going to be 
>playing from off the putting green downhill to the hole.  That could be seen 
>as assisting the fellow-competitor and to be a breach of 22-1b (last 
>paragraph).

Though I didn't think of this situation I still don't see a breach of the
RoG in it unless another player would have tried to invoke 22-1b).

Reading 22-1 until the end of line a), I understand that A _may_ lift his
ball if he considers it an assist but he is not obliged to do so from his
own initiative.

An agreement IMHO must include some communication between the players, 
be it a look, a nod or more in the situation given or before. Without this,
I don't see an agreement.

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:g87427$fab$00$5@news.t-online.com...
>M L Wadsworth in :
>
>>> BTW: If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer 
>>> putt?"
>>> and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?
>
>>It depends whether we are talking match play or stroke play.
>>
>>In match play, a player left with a short putt should mark and lift his
>>ball, since the order of play is much stricter.
>>He should **never** ask to hole out.
>
> Agreed - I am talking about stroke play.
>
>>In stroke play it is quite different. If you are left with a short putt
>>which obviously will require the ball to be marked and lifted before a
>>fellow-competitor can play, you may either mark and lift your ball or putt
>>it out (Rule 22-1b).  You do not even have to ask although some 
>>competitors
>>feel more comfortable doing so.
>
> Strictly looking at the rules, I disagree. In both 22-1 and 22-2,
> the wording is:
> |In stroke play, a player required to lift his ball may play first rather
> |than lift the ball.
>
> Therefore, unless another player explicitely requests A to lift the ball,
> he must not play first. He may of course omit to mark his ball, wait for
> the request and then hole out following the cited rule.


On the putting green (and we were talking of short putts) a competitor has 
the right to mark and
 lift his ball (16-1b) and therefore if his ball interferes with the play of 
a fellow-competitor, unlike through the green (Note to 22-2) he does not 
have to wait to be asked before marking and lifting.

>
> It is also clear that a casual breach of 10-2 c is not penalised in stroke
> play. The question is if the Q&A cited above creates a breach of 1-3 by
> _agreement_, without looking at assists or the like.


The answer is no.  There is no intent to circumvent the Rules to give one 
competitor an advantage.
It would be a breach of 1-3 if competitors agreed to play what some course 
owners would have them do, which is play "ready golf" whereby once a player 
putts he continues putting until he holes out.
The other year I found myself in a Stableford competition with an old duffer 
who wanted us to keep to the same order off the tee, irrespective of the net 
scores at the previous hole.  I of course would not agree, much to his 
annoyance.

>
> (and I know that it is quite hypothetic because everybody does so)
>
> But maybe it is another rules myth:
> "The RoG permit to hole out without respecting the proper sequence if you
> only are polite enough to ask for permission of the other players."
>
>>When you ask if competitors may be guilty of an agreement to waive the
>>rules, you may be thinking of the situation where a competitor whose ball
>>lies downhill from the hole could be accused of leaving his ball where it 
>>is
>>to assist a fellow-competitor if the fellow-competitor is going to be
>>playing from off the putting green downhill to the hole.  That could be 
>>seen
>>as assisting the fellow-competitor and to be a breach of 22-1b (last
>>paragraph).
>
> Though I didn't think of this situation I still don't see a breach of the
> RoG in it unless another player would have tried to invoke 22-1b).
>
> Reading 22-1 until the end of line a), I understand that A _may_ lift his
> ball if he considers it an assist but he is not obliged to do so from his
> own initiative.
>
> An agreement IMHO must include some communication between the players,
> be it a look, a nod or more in the situation given or before. Without 
> this,
> I don't see an agreement.


I agree but see Decision 22/7.
There may not be agreement but the intent can be obvious.

>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Apologies for injecting comments through your post, but it seemed easiest.

Your original question was:
If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?

The answer to that is simply "no."

regards,
Malcolm

M L Wadsworth in :

>>>> BTW: If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer 
>>>> putt?"
>>>> and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?

>>>In stroke play it is quite different. If you are left with a short putt
>>>which obviously will require the ball to be marked and lifted before a
>>>fellow-competitor can play, you may either mark and lift your ball or putt
>>>it out (Rule 22-1b).  You do not even have to ask although some 
>>>competitors
>>>feel more comfortable doing so.
>>
>> Strictly looking at the rules, I disagree. In both 22-1 and 22-2,
>> the wording is:
>> |In stroke play, a player required to lift his ball may play first rather
>> |than lift the ball.
>>
>> Therefore, unless another player explicitely requests A to lift the ball,
>> he must not play first. He may of course omit to mark his ball, wait for
>> the request and then hole out following the cited rule.
>
>On the putting green (and we were talking of short putts) a competitor has 
>the right to mark and
> lift his ball (16-1b) and therefore if his ball interferes with the play of 
>a fellow-competitor, unlike through the green (Note to 22-2) he does not 
>have to wait to be asked before marking and lifting.

I agree that he may mark&lift his ball. Alas, this does not include the
authority by the rules to play out of turn without being requested to
mark&lift it.

>> It is also clear that a casual breach of 10-2 c is not penalised in stroke
>> play. The question is if the Q&A cited above creates a breach of 1-3 by
>> _agreement_, without looking at assists or the like.
>
>The answer is no.  There is no intent to circumvent the Rules to give one 
>competitor an advantage.

1-3 doesn't need that reason. Simple agreement should be enough, even if
it's a disadvantage: "We agree not to take free drops from obstructions"
or neutral (tongue-in-cheek):
"I see that you are not ready to tee off though you have the honour. May I
go ahead?" - "Yes"

OTOH I recognise that the last remark of 1-3 points to 10-2 for my example
- this seems to be the solution of my putting question.
<snip>

>>>When you ask if competitors may be guilty of an agreement to waive the
>>>rules, you may be thinking of the situation where a competitor whose ball
>>>lies downhill from the hole could be accused of leaving his ball where it 
>>>is
>>>to assist a fellow-competitor if the fellow-competitor is going to be
>>>playing from off the putting green downhill to the hole.  That could be 
>>>seen
>>>as assisting the fellow-competitor and to be a breach of 22-1b (last
>>>paragraph).
>>
>> Though I didn't think of this situation I still don't see a breach of the
>> RoG in it unless another player would have tried to invoke 22-1b).
>>
>> Reading 22-1 until the end of line a), I understand that A _may_ lift his
>> ball if he considers it an assist but he is not obliged to do so from his
>> own initiative.
>>
>> An agreement IMHO must include some communication between the players,
>> be it a look, a nod or more in the situation given or before. Without 
>> this,
>> I don't see an agreement.
>
>
>I agree but see Decision 22/7.
>There may not be agreement but the intent can be obvious.

A's intent doesn't neccessarily need B's agreement. Additionally, here
again we have a third party invoking 22-1 b - a committee member. 
I agree that resistance to such demand would be a breach of 3-4 
but the sole fact that A doesn't take initiative to lift his ball seems
legal to me. Even if A intended to assist B without an agreement between A
and B it would be within the rules, IMHO, unless a third party would invoke
22-1b.

>Apologies for injecting comments through your post, but it seemed easiest.

You are welcome - to me it is good usenet style and I do it all the time.

>Your original question was:
>If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
>and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?
>
>The answer to that is simply "no."

Agreed.

Have a nice Sunday!

Paul, looking forward to play a "reverse scramble"

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:g88foo$hga$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>M L Wadsworth in :
>>Your original question was:
>>If A asks B "May I hole out my tap-in putt before your longer putt?"
>>and B nods "yes", are they guilty of an agreement to wave the rules?
>>
>>The answer to that is simply "no."
>
> Agreed.
>
> Have a nice Sunday!
>
> Paul, looking forward to play a "reverse scramble"

Reverse scramble?

I have not heard of that one, please describe for me.

Malcolm

M L Wadsworth in :

>Reverse scramble?
>
>I have not heard of that one, please describe for me.

A regular scramble, that's well known.

Reverse means that the course is played backwards,
with provisional tees close to the greens.

For example, you start on tee 18 (next to green 18) and play up the
fairway. At last, you hole out on green 17. Then you play from tee 17 
(next to green 17) to green 16 and so on.

There were some neccessary irregulaties:
- first nine and second nine were played as "closed loops" to avoid
dangerous crossovers in front of the clubhouse,
- two more target greens were interchanged due to the local arrangement.

Fortunately, the course is flat - imagine ascends or decends between the
holes!

It was great fun!
Many tee shots needed good consideration due to the presentation of a 
"new course" with new landing zones. Some holes were easy, some were quite
demanding, either due to additional length or due to obstructions like
rough or small forests dividing the holes. 

Everybody enjoyed the new experience of approaches without length
indicators and so on. We had some lucky shots through the trees and
returned a 3 over par round. This gave us the 9th place, the best result
being 3 under par, the worst 11 over par.

Ciao,

Paul

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:19:04 +0200, Paul Schmitz-Josten
 wrote:

>M L Wadsworth in :
>
>>Reverse scramble?
>>
>>I have not heard of that one, please describe for me.
>
>A regular scramble, that's well known.
>
>Reverse means that the course is played backwards,
>with provisional tees close to the greens.
>
>For example, you start on tee 18 (next to green 18) and play up the
>fairway. At last, you hole out on green 17. Then you play from tee 17 
>(next to green 17) to green 16 and so on.
>
>There were some neccessary irregulaties:
>- first nine and second nine were played as "closed loops" to avoid
>dangerous crossovers in front of the clubhouse,
>- two more target greens were interchanged due to the local arrangement.
>
>Fortunately, the course is flat - imagine ascends or decends between the
>holes!
>
>It was great fun!
>Many tee shots needed good consideration due to the presentation of a 
>"new course" with new landing zones. Some holes were easy, some were quite
>demanding, either due to additional length or due to obstructions like
>rough or small forests dividing the holes. 
>
>Everybody enjoyed the new experience of approaches without length
>indicators and so on. We had some lucky shots through the trees and
>returned a 3 over par round. This gave us the 9th place, the best result
>being 3 under par, the worst 11 over par.
>
>Ciao,
>
>Paul

I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.  
-- 
jvdp
Annika Fears Little Red Trucks
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81628198

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

> I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
> shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
> sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.
> -- 

Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst. For example a 
lot of golfers hate bunkers , I on the other hand hate chipping over 
bunkers, wich shot would be worst for me then?

Pauls reverse scramble would be difficult to organize on a lot of courses. I 
was at Five Nations golfclub in Belgium ( yes Paul whe're playing there in 
September ) a few weeks ago and plating reverse scramble there would mean 
playing threw 1,4 kms of woods to get from greenside 7th hole to green 6th.

Greetz Jan

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0200, "Jan\(Bouli\)Van Gerwen"
 wrote:

>
>> I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
>> shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
>> sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.
>> -- 
>
>Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst. For example a 
>lot of golfers hate bunkers , I on the other hand hate chipping over 
>bunkers, wich shot would be worst for me then?

Well, that's a good point.  I've never played in a reverse scramble,
in the interest of full disclosure.  Perhaps it would be played in
two-somes and your opponent would be able to pick the worst ball?  
-- 
jvdp
Annika Fears Little Red Trucks
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81628198

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

John van der Pflum  writes:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0200, "Jan\(Bouli\)Van Gerwen"
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >> I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
> >> shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
> >> sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.
> >> -- 
> >
> >Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst. For example a 
> >lot of golfers hate bunkers , I on the other hand hate chipping over 
> >bunkers, wich shot would be worst for me then?
> 
> Well, that's a good point.  I've never played in a reverse scramble,
> in the interest of full disclosure.  Perhaps it would be played in
> two-somes and your opponent would be able to pick the worst ball?  

At my old club we had a 3-hole loop that came back to the clubhouse.

We would occasionally play that loop (2 par4s and a par5) with
each player playing two balls and taking the worse of the two
(as chosen by another player).  Averaging double-bogey was a
very good score.

-- 

       -- Firstname MI Lastname

>
> At my old club we had a 3-hole loop that came back to the clubhouse.
>
> We would occasionally play that loop (2 par4s and a par5) with
> each player playing two balls and taking the worse of the two
> (as chosen by another player).  Averaging double-bogey was a
> very good score.
>
Seams like excellent practice for saving bad shots, mmmmm......... seams 
like its close to my normal golf :-)

Greetz Jan

John van der Pflum schrieb am Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:36:41 -0400 in
:

>I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
>shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
>sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.  

I read of some variation of this called "Shanghai".

Ciao,

Paul

> JvP said:
> > I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
> > shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
> > sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.

Good grief, surely that would take forever!

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0200, Jan(Bouli)Van Gerwen said...
> 
> Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst. 

The same way that the best ball is decided in a normal scramble? By 
discussion.

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

"Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2314b9967b3ceea79897ba@news.altopia.net...
>> JvP said:
>> > I thought a reverse scramble was where you take the WORST off all four
>> > shots and play from there.  So eventually, at the end, everyone has to
>> > sink that 4 footer in order to move to the next tee.
>
> Good grief, surely that would take forever!
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0200, Jan(Bouli)Van Gerwen said...
>>
>> Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst.
>
> The same way that the best ball is decided in a normal scramble? By
> discussion.
>
> -- 
> Mark Myers
> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

Except that in a normal scramble you are not obliged to take the best ball.
This particularly applies when it is required that a fixed number of tee 
shots are required from each player.
Denis

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message
news:g89j2t$5ig$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>M L Wadsworth in :
>
>>Reverse scramble?
>>
>>I have not heard of that one, please describe for me.
>
> A regular scramble, that's well known.
>
> Reverse means that the course is played backwards,
> with provisional tees close to the greens.
>
> For example, you start on tee 18 (next to green 18) and play up the
> fairway. At last, you hole out on green 17. Then you play from tee 17
> (next to green 17) to green 16 and so on.
>
> There were some neccessary irregulaties:
> - first nine and second nine were played as "closed loops" to avoid
> dangerous crossovers in front of the clubhouse,
> - two more target greens were interchanged due to the local arrangement.
>
> Fortunately, the course is flat - imagine ascends or decends between the
> holes!
>
> It was great fun!
> Many tee shots needed good consideration due to the presentation of a
> "new course" with new landing zones. Some holes were easy, some were quite
> demanding, either due to additional length or due to obstructions like
> rough or small forests dividing the holes.
>
> Everybody enjoyed the new experience of approaches without length
> indicators and so on. We had some lucky shots through the trees and
> returned a 3 over par round. This gave us the 9th place, the best result
> being 3 under par, the worst 11 over par.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Playing such a competition whilst others on the course are playing a round
in the usual sequence can be embarrassing

Denis

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:00:29 +0100, Denis Cary said...
> 
> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2314b9967b3ceea79897ba@news.altopia.net...
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0200, Jan(Bouli)Van Gerwen said...
> >>
> >> Now that would be difficult, who decides wich ball is worst.
> >
> > The same way that the best ball is decided in a normal scramble? By
> > discussion.
> 
> Except that in a normal scramble you are not obliged to take the best ball.
> This particularly applies when it is required that a fixed number of tee 
> shots are required from each player.

Exactly. That's why you choose the ball to take using discussion. My use 
of best was not meant quite so literally, but as a simple opposite to 
Jan's question.

Of course re-thinking I now realise that choosing the 'worst' ball could 
never work, unless you had an opposition to choose the ball for you.

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

Denis Cary schrieb am Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:01:42 +0100 in
<g8ejnp$clg$1@aioe.org>:

>> Reverse means that the course is played backwards,
>> with provisional tees close to the greens.
<snip>
>Playing such a competition whilst others on the course are playing a round
>in the usual sequence can be embarrassing

This minor item was solved by the means of a cannonball start:
All of the course was supposed to be empty before the start time.

An additional thrill of the whole event was to sit on the terrasse inhaling
the second beer and to be witness when the first group went out "in
regular", re-establishing the usual sequence - nothing really happened to
the course and to golf!

Ciao,

Paul

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:51:09 +0200, Paul Schmitz-Josten
 wrote:

>Denis Cary schrieb am Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:01:42 +0100 in
><g8ejnp$clg$1@aioe.org>:
>
>>> Reverse means that the course is played backwards,
>>> with provisional tees close to the greens.
><snip>
>>Playing such a competition whilst others on the course are playing a round
>>in the usual sequence can be embarrassing
>
>This minor item was solved by the means of a cannonball start:
>All of the course was supposed to be empty before the start time.
>
>An additional thrill of the whole event was to sit on the terrasse inhaling
>the second beer and to be witness when the first group went out "in
>regular", re-establishing the usual sequence - nothing really happened to
>the course and to golf!
>
>Ciao,
>
>Paul

Personally -- I think that would be a lot of fun.  I'm playing the
course backwards in my head.  But I doubt the head pro would ever go
for something like this.  
-- 
jvdp
Annika Fears Little Red Trucks
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81628198

http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

On Aug 12, 8:51 pm, Peter Strauss  wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:44:32 퍝, "M L Wadsworth"

>
> My barber, who is a very low hcp. golfer, and has staged his own....

I've seen pictures of you, wee one.  He must sit on his butt to cut
your hair.  Does he charge you extra for the discomfort?

John van der Pflum in :

(reverse golf)
>>[...] nothing really happened to
>>the course and to golf!

>Personally -- I think that would be a lot of fun.  I'm playing the
>course backwards in my head.  But I doubt the head pro would ever go
>for something like this.

As I said, nothing happens to the course. Some teeing areas in the first
rough near the green plus divots of approach shots in unusual places,
that's all.

Ciao,

Paul

"Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message 
news:6h2or8FibkpeU1@mid.individual.net...
> John van der Pflum in :
>
> (reverse golf)
>>>[...] nothing really happened to
>>>the course and to golf!
>
>>Personally -- I think that would be a lot of fun.  I'm playing the
>>course backwards in my head.  But I doubt the head pro would ever go
>>for something like this.
>
> As I said, nothing happens to the course. Some teeing areas in the first
> rough near the green plus divots of approach shots in unusual places,
> that's all.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

I understand that it was once commonplace to play the Old Course at St 
Andrews in reverse to even out the wear on the course. but the design with 
double greens made that easy to achieve. At many courses that I have played 
it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to arrange to play a the course 
in reverse. Certainly at my course you could not do it since that would 
involve driving across several public roads and thickly wooded areas!

Kenneth

On 20 Aug, 17:54, "Kenneth"  wrote:
> "Paul Schmitz-Josten"  wrote in message
>
> news:6h2or8FibkpeU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > John van der Pflum in :
>
> > (reverse golf)
> >>>[...] nothing really happened to
> >>>the course and to golf!
>
> >>Personally -- I think that would be a lot of fun.  I'm playing the
> >>course backwards in my head.  But I doubt the head pro would ever go
> >>for something like this.
>
> > As I said, nothing happens to the course. Some teeing areas in the first
> > rough near the green plus divots of approach shots in unusual places,
> > that's all.
>
> > Ciao,
>
> > Paul
>
> I understand that it was once commonplace to play the Old Course at St
> Andrews in reverse to even out the wear on the course. but the design with
> double greens made that easy to achieve. At many courses that I have played
> it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to arrange to play a the course
> in reverse. Certainly at my course you could not do it since that would
> involve driving across several public roads and thickly wooded areas!
>
> Kenneth

Very true Kenneth. Old Tom Morris, the curator of the links, was the
instigating force of playing The Old Links in two directions to
prevent constant wear and tear in defined areas. In fact it was the
practice in the 19th century to play the course 'right handed' for a
week and then 'left handed' for the next week. This was discontinued
just before the Great War. Interestingly the Amateur Championship of
1886 was scheduled for a certain time and authority forgot to work out
which week it was. It so coincided with a 'left handed' week and the
tournament was in progress before anyone realised it. That was the one
and only time the Amateur was played 'left handed'.

JPW

"JPW"  wrote in message 
news:bbff06f6-5013-4d9b-b948-ae1c398fbaa2@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Aug, 17:54, "Kenneth"  wrote:
> I understand that it was once commonplace to play the Old Course at St
> Andrews in reverse to even out the wear on the course. but the design with
> double greens made that easy to achieve. At many courses that I have 
> played
> it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to arrange to play a the 
> course
> in reverse. Certainly at my course you could not do it since that would
> involve driving across several public roads and thickly wooded areas!
>
> Kenneth

Very true Kenneth. Old Tom Morris, the curator of the links, was the
instigating force of playing The Old Links in two directions to
prevent constant wear and tear in defined areas. In fact it was the
practice in the 19th century to play the course 'right handed' for a
week and then 'left handed' for the next week. This was discontinued
just before the Great War. Interestingly the Amateur Championship of
1886 was scheduled for a certain time and authority forgot to work out
which week it was. It so coincided with a 'left handed' week and the
tournament was in progress before anyone realised it. That was the one
and only time the Amateur was played 'left handed'.

JPW

Many thanks for your interesting comments. I was unaware of the precise 
history of the procedure but I was told by a local golfer some years ago 
that it was still the practice at that time to reverse the play in the 
autumn to give the fairways a rest from the hammering they get through the 
drier summer months.

Kenneth