can a player borrow another players distance measuring device. the players are playing matchplay in a group of 4 and are teammates

No problem. Information on distance is no longer advice under the Definitions or Rule 8-1.

I recently played as a visitor at a course where the local rule allowing the use of distance measuring devices was in force but where they had made it (I presume) a condition of competition that these devices were not to be shared. I presume this was to avoid any pace of play issues that might arise from the owner of the device wandering all over the course providing distances for his fellow competitors.

What is the meaning of the word ‘shared’? Sharing information, or sharing the device?

It’s hard to work out how you’d police sharing the information. Information on distance is no longer ‘advice’ under the definitions, and sharing distance information is not prohibited, in fact it’s specifically allowed. It’s hard to see how they could go against a Rule of Golf if they just tried to ban ‘sharing the information’.

If they wanted to be serious, they’d ping them for pace of play through undue delay.

Sorry I didn’t make it clear. Sharing the device was not allowed.

Well, I’m still confused.

I wander 30m over to a player with my SureShot, and he says ‘what’s the distance from here’? I look at the screen and tell him ‘135’.

How is that ‘sharing the device’? It’s only sharing distance information, but it could still be damn slow. I still can’t see how they can stop the slow play that might ensue by some rule against sharing of the device itself.

What if my ball is right next to another player’s and while we’re waiting for another player to hit, he looks at my screen and gets a measurement with absolutely no time wasted? Is that a penalty for sharing the device even though it caused no time delay?

If pace of play is the problem, I still think they are confusing applying the Rule on sharing information (Defs/8-1) with the Rule on undue delay (6-7). I think it would be quite reasonable to put in a Condition of Competition that stated sharing of distance information from a GPS etc. must not unduly delay play and players must stick to pace of play guidelines.

To be completely precise, I am unable to report exactly what the situation where I visited was as I didn’t have the opportunity to read any of their documentation. I’m reporting what I was casually advised verbally, albeit by a person in a position to know, when I asked if DMDs were allowed in competitions on the course. I can’t take that any further than the discussion so far.

As far as the rules are concerned, you are totally correct that sharing information as to distance is within the rules and there is scope for penalty for undue delay.

My opinion is there is some value in maintaining players’ focus on the issue of slow play. As best I understand it, but without knowing in detail how they implemented their policy, that club used the issue of DMDs to attempt to keep slow play at the forefront of players thinking. That’s not a bad thing in my view.

I wonder under which Rule and the Committee would penalize the player who borrowed a DMD from another player?

And what would the penalty be?

My interest is now peaked! I have been to the web site of the club in question and they don’t publish their local rules/conditions of competition on the visitor part of the site. If I get an opportunity I will find out how they state their position and let you know.

As to the original post, provided that a local rule has been implemented to allow the use of DMDs there is no problem using them. Whether or not DMDs are allowed, there is no problem sharing information as to distances to any object on the golf course.

I only really brought up the issue of sharing devices because of my recent experience and because I was a bit surprised by it. With the benefit of the spotlight provided by this forum I can see any implementation of such a policy would be challenging.

I wonder under which Rule and the Committee would penalize the player who borrowed a DMD from another player?

And what would the penalty be?

I assume, like the OP did, that it was simply a CoC.

In order to be legal, any CoC must have some kind of Rule for reference and penalty statement.
I can’t see which Rule should cover borrowing of equipment other than clubs.

I can’t see what the confusion is.

If two players are close together and one is using the device and the other asks how far it is to the hole then there is no problem because he is only giving distance information.

If he hands the device over then the rule (if valid) is broken.

No sharing of the DMD at all seems reasonable otherwise you could have people running all over the place handing the DMD over for each shot and it doesn’t seem practical to write a local rule that says “DMD may not be shared unless you are within X distance and the sharing of the DMD will not unduly delay play”.

it may seem reasonable that dmd’s should not be shared but it does not seem to be against the rules at the moment.

I can’t see what the confusion is.

If two players are close together and one is using the device and the other asks how far it is to the hole then there is no problem because he is only giving distance information.

If he hands the device over then the rule (if valid) is broken.

No sharing of the DMD at all seems reasonable otherwise you could have people running all over the place handing the DMD over for each shot and it doesn’t seem practical to write a local rule that says “DMD may not be shared unless you are within X distance and the sharing of the DMD will not unduly delay play”.

• Make a CofC that has dubious references to a Rule of Golf.
• Make a CofC that actually runs counter to a Rule of Golf (i.e. the legality of sharing distance information).
• Use a Rule that has nothing to do with undue delay in an attempt to avoid undue delay.
• Make a CofC that is nearly impossible to police anyway, because the concept of ‘sharing’ is so weak.

In order to be legal, any CoC must have some kind of Rule for reference and penalty statement.
I can’t see which Rule should cover borrowing of equipment other than clubs.

Undue Delay/Slow Play I’d say could be an applicable reference Rule if pushed. However I feel it is wrong to address sharing of devices specifically. If they can be shared without harmful delay, why not? Let Slow Play look after it if necessary – then there wouldn’t be the inconsistency with yardage books being ok to share.

btw, any idea what the reference Rule for the prohibition of motorised transport CoC is?

Appendix 1 Part C-9.

I have a twist then…..

My club does not allow DMD’s. What if I am playing with someone who has one on the course and is using it on the tee of a par 3 – he proceeds to play his shot.

I then pull out a club and make the statement that I think its 145 to the flag – he then corrcets me and says actually its 154 to the flag. So I change my club and fire away.

If I did not know where he got his distance from – am I in breach of the DMD local rule – or lack thereof??

If you did not know, then you are not implicated in his transgression of the rules (Dec 8-1/2). He would have to be pretty sly with his use of a DMD as it is usually obvious when one is being used.

If you did know, you would be subject to DQ under 14-3.

Appendix 1 Part C-9.

That is the CoC – wondering what the underlying reference Rule is that RD talks of above.

The Appendix is part of the RoG, eg the only place where you will find reference for the Drug Testing CoC found on the Australian hard card – is App 1 C-10 Anti-Doping.

The Appendix also points to the decisions under 33-1.

For your transport issue – Dec. 33-1/8.

Suggest looking at the definition of “Rules”.

You’re suggesting that the underlying reference rule requirement RD was talking about is satisfied by the idea conditions in App 1-C. I don’t believe this is what RD meant, for I thought App 1-C just contains sample CoC and aren’t part of the RoG. Only conditions established by the committee under this section are.

Now many of these recommendations in App 1-C do indeed note a reference rule. This is what I feel RD was referring to. Transport and Anti-doping don’t.

But we’ll wait for RD to clarify as the way I’‘ve understood his/her statement above makes me think my club can not have a CoC stipulating no more than 4 in a group.

Transport is covered under the “Rules” (App.I, C, 9), Anti-doping is nowhere to be found in the “Rules”.

The Rules of Golf, the Decisions on the Rules of Golf specifics on clubs and balls, any Local Rules and CoC’s made by the Committee (under Rule 33-1!!) are all part of the “Rules”.
The Committee can not invent their own Local Rules or Conditions of the Competition outside of the options of the “Rules”.
If they want special regulations, they can call them “house-rules” or “rules of conduct” and make their own sanctions.

A Local Rule can not be made on the number of players in a group, and a Local Rule can not be made to prohibit players from borrowing umbrellas or golf balls.

Local Rule?

Can a CoC be made on the number of players in a group?

Excuse my persistence, I’d like to properly understand this.

Transport is covered under the “Rules” (App.I, C, 9), Anti-doping is nowhere to be found in the “Rules”.

I’m not arguing with what you have written; however, have you seen this (or its equivalent on the R&A web site):
http://www.usga.org/playing...

RG, you should argue and I stand corrected, anti-doping is covered by the Rules.