What does "interferes with the ball" mean?

It means the lie sucks because the ball is leaning on a piece of soil/grass because the hole made by the cart path has elevated **** around it

Just say... "Hey, that's why I make you putt those 3-foot gimme putts. Anyone who gets that surprised and excited after making one certainly needs to be putting them out. You should be pouring them in and staring me down for making you putt them, not acting like you drained 25 footer."

Dumb scoring question time:

In a tournament, I record all 18 individual hole scores correctly. The sum should be 80; however I can't do math and report the total on the scorecard I turn in as:

1) 79, or
2) 81

What penalty applies and what's my total score in each case?

No penalty - score is 80. You are only responsible for recording the correct scores (+ name and handicap).

Quote:

Signing an Incorrect Scorecard

...

Never total the nines or the total on an official scorecard.

Thanks guys

Has it always been that way or was it changed at one point?

It's always been that way as long as I have played. You are responsible for putting your name, handicap and correct gross scores for each hole on your card. The competition committee or whoever is running the competition are responsible for making sure that the scores are added up correctly.

While the thread is on the first page, I thought that some people might find this interesting. Mickelson found himself in this very situation a couple of weeks ago.

He was in a hazard and decided to try and hit it out. Ball did not come out. Here are the options for what to do next......

http://www.fsga.org/sections/content...s---091513/441

not sure if this is rules or etiquette. probably rules but might be "local rule"

do you always have the right to demand that another player in your group mark his ball on the green when you are hitting into the green?

i know it wouldn't make you wildly popular to want your opponent to walk up 180 yards to make his ball especially when there's a 3rd player hitting after you.

twice in last week i have seen a player's perfect shot heading towards the pin ram into another ball within 15 feet of the pin.

once the ball was between player and hole for a chip. and the other time the ball spun backwards so the ball wasn't between player and hole

mostly curiousity.... i am not a nit in practice, in fact more the opposite. i am a curiousity nit though

Yes.

Sample size/variance.

In reality, unless it's a chip shot, if you have to ask there's no reason to have anybody mark their ball.

Played a new course today and on one of the holes there was a, well I guess it could be described as a small pond between two fairways.

It was water anyway, and it seemed too big to be casual water, but there were no water-hazard (or any other relevant) markers anywhere near it. No banks or 'edges' - it was just a decent sized pond right in the grass between two fairways. I've only been here a few days with great weather, but even if it was raining a ton before I arrived I can't see this being normal casual water.

I obv hit right into it and had no idea how to proceed - just took a drop where it went in and played on. Ended up losing the hole (post round drinks on the line so srs business obv) even if I had counted it as a free drop from casual water, but curious how something like that should be scored?

If water is in the playfield but not marked should it always be considered casual water?

It was a pretty informal club and the lady in the pro shop spoke hardly any english, so trying to clear up what was up with this pond didn't happen at the time.

Hard to make a solid definition without seeing the course. If it is fairly obvious the water is not casual, then the water is in fact a hazard where the edge of the hazard is defined by the water itself.

My guess is that it's some sort of local rule/decision, ask about it in the pro shop.

Yea, I should've taken a picture of it but didn't think about it at the time.

The rest of the course was completely dry, so it seemed strange that such a big area should be casual water, but it seemed equally strange that it should be an unmarked water hazard as it was right between two fairways, and if it didn't actually touch one of the fairways, it was certainly well inn on the semi-rough part of it.

As mentioned, it was a very informal and casual club so maybe they just didn't bother about it. If I could've communicated with the lady in the pro shop I would've asked, but given how hard it was to get greenfees and trolleys from her before the round, getting an explanation of that water seemed pretty impossible.

what's the basic etiquette and perhaps rules - match play?? - on very short putts?

on etiquette, are you always allowed to do short putt as long as 1) you don't mark the ball - even very quickly - ;2) do a conscious read on the putt?.. not sure if there are other criteria.

also, i'm talking about generic tourney play... not huge gallery with TW where maybe he waits till end on everything to tap in.

and i presume match play is formal about order of play.

thx advance

^^

If you play out of turn in matchplay you can be asked to replay the shot if you did so without permission, so I'd never continue without the say-so. If you tapped it in and your opponent then asked you to replay the shot after him, he might have messed with your head and that easy putt might look a bit longer afterwards....

I believe the Americans did this exact same thing to Annika back in the day if I remember correctly.

If the putt is short enough that you wouldn't take any time over it, your opponent will have already conceded the putt. Otherwise you mark and wait your turn.

Annika's chip was ~30 feet IIRC. After she holed it, they decided to measure and discovered she played out of turn. Under the rules they had the option of making her replay the shot, which they did.

If I remember correctly, the American captain made her replay her shot, and amidst her tears she nearly made it again. That was probably the incentive for the Europeans to win.

http://www.golfmagic.com/news/golf-n...-to-tears/1139

I had this one come up yesterday in a fourball match. The 2 players on the opposing team both hit into a fairway bunker and their balls were a couple inches apart. One of the players had to mark and move his ball, but he just picked it up without marking it. Is that loss of hole for that player, basically meaning he's out of the hole but not his partner??

Under the strict letter of the law it would be a penalty on that player only. Did the player replace his ball in the same lie it was originally in? If so, is that something you feel good about calling on an opponent in a club match? In a club match I may be willing to let that slide if he didn't gain an advantage and isn't a jerk.

In a higher level event I'd probably call it on them every time.

Yes, the guy replaced the ball in the correct spot and didn't gain an advantage. Both him and his partner had such a **** show on the hole it didn't matter anyway.

Interesting situation with Poulter today at the PGA Championship.


For those who did not see it, here is what happened.

(1) Poulter hits a ball towards a lateral water hazard.

(2) Several people look for the ball in and outside the hazard for at least 5 mins.

(3) Rules official tells Poulter he is going to be penalized stroke and distance, as there are lots of places the ball could be outside the hazard (tall grass, could have hit a tree, etc).

(4) Poulter argues the ruling and Spieth supports Poulter that the ball must be in the hazard. They saw it head into the hazard.

(5) Official changes his mind and agrees with Poulter and then they discuss where the ball was likely to have entered the hazard.

(6) Then Spieth finds Poutler's ball outside of the hazard. Of course Poulter cant play it because 5 mins have gone by, and the location of the original ball is now irrelevant as the official had already ruled that it was virtually certain that the original ball was in the hazard.

(7) Poulter takes drop under one of the options for a lateral water hazard drop.

FWIW, I would have made the same argument as Poulter did...I think most of us would have.

I found it interesting, though, that the official in the booth was advocating for the same ruling that the on course official originally made, but that under Poulter's insistence the on course official changed his ruling.

This particular situation is certainly going to be something that is referred to in rules clinics when it comes to what "virtual certainty" means in the context of a ball lost in a hazard. Would not be surprised if the bar for "virtual certainty" just got raised.