Jump to content


 

Photo

Hio?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#31 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24090 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:36 AM

Why are loose impediments treated differently to movable obstructions? Logic would say they should be the same with no penalty if the ball is moved while moving the LI or MO.
Some would say they are different and can be treated differently. Until you have a stone in a bunker (assuming LR).

And still they wonder why Joe Blow has 'difficulty' understanding rules.

Dismounting now.

#32 Mr Potato Head

Mr Potato Head

    Non-Playing Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1217 posts
  • LocationOff the back foot

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:07 AM

Dismounting now.


Attached File  vlad 1.jpg   37.46KB   0 downloads
  • languid likes this

Country golfer on a City course.

 

I'm good, but no-one seems to care.

 

Now I find out a French au-pair is NOT a breed of goat!

 

Knock Knock !   Who's There?

 

Peter !  Peter Who? 

 

Scott Morrison!
 
 


#33 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1878 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:29 AM

Pom,
“If it makes RO’S unpopular so be it.
I think “more” after RO’S would be correct.
Of course Rules Officials are not trying to be popular, but they could do with some love
  • pom likes this

#34 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1878 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:53 AM

Why are loose impediments treated differently to movable obstructions? Logic would say they should be the same with no penalty if the ball is moved while moving the LI or MO.
Some would say they are different and can be treated differently. Until you have a stone in a bunker (assuming LR).
And still they wonder why Joe Blow has 'difficulty' understanding rules.
Dismounting now.

It is a long way down getting off a dragon.
The “perfect” golf course among other things would have zero Obstructions movable or immovable. Loose impediments are natural and reasonably expected. In the concept of play the ball as it lies whatever nature presents is the reality.
Movable obstructions should not be there. Joe Blow can understand that. However Joe Blow needs some exposure to the concept. I think the Ruling Bodies are working hard to explain reasons behind Rules particularly in the current Rules Revision. The Clubs could play an important role in the education process, but they need help. I hope this will happen. I am not holding my breath.

#35 rogolf

rogolf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 459 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 11:55 AM

Why are loose impediments treated differently to movable obstructions? Logic would say they should be the same with no penalty if the ball is moved while moving the LI or MO.
Some would say they are different and can be treated differently. Until you have a stone in a bunker (assuming LR).

And still they wonder why Joe Blow has 'difficulty' understanding rules.

Dismounting now.

Pretty close to an OBB, but I'm being kind(er) this year.



#36 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24090 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:05 PM

I was thinking more of a 'high horse' than a dragon, but that's ok.

#37 pom

pom

    Old Grouch.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11901 posts
  • Locationtownsville

Posted 23 February 2018 - 04:07 PM

May I ask. Has anyone on here ever seen anything like this before?. I know I have not.


Member of the Vision Test Pilot Project.
No VTPP11

#38 Bluethunda

Bluethunda

    ISG AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL 4BBB CHAMPION, WITH HARRO

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17400 posts
  • Location#Iamacheat

Posted 23 February 2018 - 05:22 PM

Saw this pic on Stalkbook tonight.

What is the ruling...HIO or not?

attachicon.gifHIO.jpg



I think the group in front all putted to the back of the cup, thus avoiding the debris, or after they all holed out, the wind blew and debris fell from the tree, leaving this over the hole. Not a hole in one.

Edited by iTurf1.0.2, 23 February 2018 - 05:22 PM.

DEBUT: US Masters, Augusta National Golf Club, Augusta, GA 2016
DEBUT: ANA Inspirational LPGA Mission Hills, Palm Springs, CA 2016
Reacquainted myself with Karrie Webb, Australia's Greatest Golfer

#39 MaxxOn

MaxxOn

    On Top

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20222 posts
  • LocationThe Burrow

Posted 23 February 2018 - 05:48 PM

Saw this pic on Stalkbook tonight.
 
What is the ruling...HIO or not?
 
attachicon.gifHIO.jpg


Desperately unlucky.
  • Madam likes this

#40 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Defining and analysing humour is a pastime of humourless people

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24090 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 23 February 2018 - 07:42 PM

May I ask. Has anyone on here ever seen anything like this before?. I know I have not.


No. Most golfers endeavour to leave 'a fair track' for those following, except the lazy pricks who don't properly rake the bunker they've disturbed.

#41 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3075 posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:18 AM

Saw this pic on Stalkbook tonight.

 

What is the ruling...HIO or not?

 

attachicon.gifHIO.jpg

Here is the ruling

 

https://www.facebook...030596047089132

 

The R&A shared Inside Golf's post.
9 hrs · 

And it's.....HOLED!

It's got golfers talking around the globe. Here's our Ruling:

"It is a very rare situation, but The R&A received a similar question 30 years ago. The answer given, which we would still apply, was as follows: On the putting green, if the player’s removal of a loose impediment causes the ball to move, the ball is replaced without penalty. As replacement of the ball would be impossible in this case, in equity (Rule 1-4), the ball is considered to be holed with the previous stroke."

Read up on the Rules of Golf at Randa.org

 
27657231_10159956539370573_4411852974803

Edited by AAA, 24 February 2018 - 03:20 AM.

  • BumpunRun, languid, iRON MiCK and 2 others like this

#42 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1878 posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 12:00 PM

AAA, Thanks for good work in getting the R and A Ruling. 



#43 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1878 posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 12:09 PM

Maybe Decision 16/3 will get a hard look and Revised in the light of 30 year old Ruling made by the R and A.

Maybe not.

As well,  The Decision Book will become the  Handbook maybe in 2019 in light of the big changes ahead. Maybe not, anyway it will be interesting to see what happens. 

I look forward to seeing the Foreword written by Old Bogey.


  • OldBogey and pom like this

#44 pom

pom

    Old Grouch.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11901 posts
  • Locationtownsville

Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:05 PM

I was interested in the fact that it has taken 30 years for the question to be asked  again. Shows how frequently this situation arises I guess. I hope the decisions book does become the handbook. It would be the logical move.


Member of the Vision Test Pilot Project.
No VTPP11

#45 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3075 posts

Posted 25 February 2018 - 05:04 AM

I was interested in the fact that it has taken 30 years for the question to be asked  again. Shows how frequently this situation arises I guess. I hope the decisions book does become the handbook. It would be the logical move.

Not quite. I asked the question I posted at the top of the thread in 2009. I wasn't aware of the earlier ruling and the R&A didn't mention it at the time. I gather that when I asked for confirmation for this specific case this time they thought the 30 year reference was more interesting..


  • pom likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users