100% agreed with Maggie. Have tried that tact before and have in turn become te target of their snide responses. Rulesdoc seems to be the only one that is capable of presenting objective responses.
Rogaman – you have acquitted yourself much better than I could have. Interested reader makin his own mind up right here.

Interested reader makin his own mind up right here.

As part of that process did you figure out why the ball when lifted and replaced would, as Rogaman says, still be a wrong ball (or, asked another way, what method, other than the placement under Rule 20-4, would put the set-aside ball back into play)?

Piss funny thread.

You guys make the rules WAY more interesting.

And the fact that most of the rules gurus never seem to actually agree on anything isn’t just a little hint that maybe, just maybe, they are a little confusing to those of us who haven’t dedicated their lives (?) to learning and edumacating others? Let alone those who have?

Keep up the good work.

Rogaman – you still rock.

Funniest thread on the site….and they reckon Stink and I can dribble….pffft.

I rarely see disagreement between the more rules-savvy on here.

RulesGeek

It would be unwise to confuse a courteous ‘tidying-up’ with a ‘re-engagement’.

But to address your questions…

Are you implying that this ball could only get back into play if it were placed at the original spot (the one from which the fellow-competitor had lifted it)?

I am stating that the only way which the Rules of Golf provide for this ball to get back into play is for it to be replaced at the point where it was marked, in accordance with Rule 20-3. Decision 20-1/4 is of peripheral interest.

Or, are you suggesting that a Rule other than Rule 20-4 is available to tell us how this ball could again get back into play?

I have stated previously my view that there is no other provision within the Rules of Golf which support the conclusion that this ball could be deemed to have been in play at the time Wasabi played it, other than Rule 1-4.

I further state that the final sentence of Decision 15-3b/3 has the de facto effect of rendering Wasabi’s ball ‘in play’ from the position he played it if Wasabi has played from the next tee before he learns that the ball had been moved on the green without his authority (notwithstanding that this conclusion is a concoction of our friends with no direct foundation within the Rules of Golf, and no attribution to Rule 1-4).

Rule 20-4 provides that a ball which has been legitimately replaced is then in play, and is not relevant to the circumstances in question.

See Dodgy Decision #2 which will be posted in the next few days.

Thanks Goldy

RulesGeek

It would be unwise to confuse a courteous ‘tidying-up’ with a ‘re-engagement’.

Oh, okay. Are you re-engaged now?

I am stating that the only way which the Rules of Golf provide for this ball to get back into play is for it to be replaced at the point where it was marked, in accordance with Rule 20-3.

...

Rule 20-4 provides that a ball which has been legitimately replaced is then in play, and is not relevant to the circumstances in question.

I’ve combined two of your paragraphs into a single ‘blockquote’ as they (appear to) say the same thing.

If I’m reading you correctly (and I welcome a correction if I’m not), you’re saying that a ball is only in play if it is (using the original scenario) replaced at the spot from which it was lifted by the outside agency (the non-partner fellow-competitor). In the second paragraph that I’ve quoted, I think you’re just repeating that idea (though more generally) by saying that a ball legitimately placed (or, presumably, dropped as that action is covered by Rule 20-4 as well) is in play but one that has not been legitimately placed/dropped is not in play. Illegitimate placings/droppings, I assume, include those done at a wrong place (as you mention in the first quoted paragraph above) and, for instance, substitution of a ball when not permitted or a drop/place done by a person not permitted by the rules to drop or place the ball, right?

If it is correct that a ball placed at a wrong place is not in play then why would the Rules of Golf include the concept of play from a wrong place (except, I suppose, for areas marked GUR-PlayProhibited)? According to you such a ball is a wrong ball (as it is not in play) so Rule 15-3 would apply. And, under those circumstances, the last paragraph of Rule 20-3a (the rule that you cited) would tell the player to correct his play of a wrong ball wouldn’t it?

Will Decisions 18-2a/8.5 and 20-2a/4 be the subjects of a future ‘Dodgy Decisions’ column? Those decisions are examples of balls that were illegitimately (wrong place, improper substitution, wrong manner) dropped and yet they are in play.

I rarely see disagreement between the more rules-savvy on here.

 

Depending on who you include in the Rules-savvy bunch ;-)

No, there’s in general not much disagreeing here. I’ll not go too much into this defending of the existing Rules, they can defend themselves just fine, and I can’t debate on this level anyway.

...but I wonder who the player will turn to if he finds himself in a doubtful situation on the course during an important tournament? The rocking Rogaman or RG?

Rogaman.

Unless I want to be lectured for not knowing the answer to the question I just asked.

Brilliant question RD, I so admire a smart lady :)

For me, I believe it’s directly related to culture and how the message is perceived to be delivered and how your culture deals with that, rather than the actual information in the message. Politicians know this too well. As do the posters on this forum like Goldy, me and others undoubtedly.

Because I think as Aussies, with a fairly strong social justice background and general distrust of authority (we have a pretty well deserved rep for being larrikins!) we’re hardwired to expect respect from all, even the most authoritative, at least initially. Coming out of that, for right or wrong, we have a “tall poppy syndrome” where we habitually challenge so called “experts” which is mostly related not to their expertise but how they perceive themselves and the respect they demonstrate – the list of public ppl we challenge and who we do not is long and interesting. Ppl smarter than me can discuss this with more authority, but then if they’re aussie they’ll expect to be howled down :) This goes from general hilarious “taking the piss” to strong objection as this thread demos.

So into this mix the Unsuspecting gallop…..

Hard question RD, as in my experience, players will turn to whoever has more chance of giving them a favourable decision, not a correct decision.

Those who wish the world was easier, not that they were better, do however love castle shouters and would dislike RG’s ways. Also I suspect Rogaman is Shanks4ever, who’s popular in the other forums on ISG.

Hard question RD, as in my experience, players will turn to whoever has more chance of giving them a favourable decision, not a correct decision.

Those who wish the world was easier, not that they were better, do however love castle shouters and would dislike RG’s ways. Also I suspect Rogaman is Shanks4ever, who’s popular in the other forums on ISG.

 

Steb

Wrong assumption, take a careful look at the different communication styles. Rules Geek has worked it out.

One day I hope I can be as popular as you, whats your secret?

As stated before I will not enter the rules section unless my avatar is mentioned.

I will leave it to Rogaman, he seems to be able to put up with the negativity and somewhat closed minds which pervade in this space.

This thread is a good case in point as to why aren’t the rules simpler.

Or more precise with less ambiguity.

Oops, here we go again !!

Same dogs, bigger bone.

If it was that easy then it would have been done by now. Not necessarily by the RBs but by those who really believe it should and can be done.

Those who are really convinced it can be done should gather a group of like minded people and do something positive, not just sit there carping. Perhaps someone knows of a site where this could be coordinated.

Wrong assumption, take a careful look at the different communication styles.

Not an assumption, not KVC, just a suspicion. It is actually your communication styles that gives me that suspicion.

This thread is a good case in point as to why aren’t the rules simpler.

Is it?

Do you have some thoughts on how you would like the Rules to handle the situation when the player whose ball has been set aside, by an outside agency, (1) plays it from that position without lifting it or (2) lifts/replaces the ball at the ‘set-aside’ position and then plays it?

If it was that easy then it would have been done by now. Not necessarily by the RBs but by those who really believe it should and can be done.

Those who are really convinced it can be done should gather a group of like minded people and do something positive, not just sit there carping. Perhaps someone knows of a site where this could be coordinated.

.

Rogamania’s site would seem to be a good starting point for anyone inclined to do something positive about the rules.

I will repeat, I am not Rogamania and have better things to do than argue rules, I will leave that to the passionate experts.

RulesGeek

My responses are…

(a) No, I am not;

(b) I am very sorry but I cannot assist you further with your comprehension difficulties (other than to note that ‘placing’ and ‘replacing’ are conceptually different and reiterate that Rule 20-4 has nothing whatever to do with this situation); and

(c) No, these Decisions are entirely rational and are firmly grounded in the Rules.

(other than to note that ‘placing’ and ‘replacing’ are conceptually different and reiterate that Rule 20-4 has nothing whatever to do with this situation)

Repeating that 20-4 is irrelevant doesn’t make it so (and, if Rule 20-4 and Decision 20-4/2, which I mentioned back on Page 2 are irrelevant then it is very curious that Decision 20-4/2 appears as a ‘Related Decision’ listed below Decision 15-3b/3).

Like your new supplemental avatar !!ok (should look like a thumbs up, but probably doesn’t)

Just read the whole 5 pages….holy crap, my head hurts !! :)

Just read the whole 5 pages….holy crap, my head hurts !! :)

Supreme Putting Champion at the Inaugural 2012 ISG National Championship
Voted player most likely to take out the next after the first ISG National Championship
http://www.golflink.com.au/...

Wow, your powers of concentration are much greater than mine. I began skimming fter page 2.

Does anyone remember when golf used to be fun…..

I do – it was great fun when I played Sunday :-)

I do – it was great fun when I played Sunday :-)

Hit it where they mow

Yo have time to play golf??? ;-)