Rules of Golf

Kevin Na Chooses to Play off the Path

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:18:00 +0000

I have not seen the TV coverage of the final round of the Player's Championship in TPC Sawgrass last Sunday, but I have received several enquiries asking why Kevin Na was permitted to play his ball from off the road on the 18th hole after taking relief. It was suggested that this was a breach of the Rules as he had not taken complete relief, as required by Rule 24-1b (see this blog on taking complete relief).

Once again the TV commentators seem to have caused some of this confusion by speculating that he was given the option of taking relief because a curb at the side of the path interfered with his stance. In fact, this was not the case. The walking Rules Official had informed Na that he was entitled to take free relief because his ball was lying in an abnormal ground condition close to the path, apparently caused by recent crowd damage. He then proceeded according to the Rules, which was to determine the nearest point of relief where there was no interference from the abnormal ground condition and was not nearer the hole, and drop his ball within one club-length of this point, which happened to be on the asphalt path. Na dropped his ball on the path and it came to rest in a position where it did not have to be re-dropped. Because the asphalt path is an immovable obstruction he could then have taken free relief again by determining the nearest point of relief from it, not nearer the hole, and dropping a ball within one club-length of that point. However, he obviously decided that the lie that he had after placing his ball on the road was likely to be better than dropping the ball on the trampled grass at the side of the road. It is not mandatory for players to take relief from immovable obstructions (Rule 24-2b) and he chose not to do so. Hindsight suggests that he made the right decision as he was able to play a great shot onto the green and made his par with two putts.

I hope that you noticed that I wrote this whole piece about Kevin Na without mentioning his multiple waggles. Duh!!

(Edited 20th May 2012: Click here for the official explanation of this incident from John Van der Borght, Manager, Rules Communications, USGA.)

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

If you are interested in the Rules of Golf then I think that you will find my ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series interesting. You can receive them one at a time each week by email for 99 weeks, or you can purchase the whole set for $9, €7 or £6. Click here for a specimen copy and here to purchase.

Unusual Use of Equipment

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:47:00 +0000

Two weeks ago I heard about a player who received a useful tip during a lesson from his Club Pro. It was to help him keep his head still during his stroke until after the moment of impact. The advice was to tuck his chin into his chest, take his shirt into his mouth and bite on it until his stroke was over. He was pleased at how well this worked for him and used the technique during his next medal competition with great results. However, he was less pleased when he was then disqualified from the competition for using equipment in an unusual manner. Part of Rule 14-3 states;

The player must not use… any equipment in an unusual manner:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:
(i) gloves may be worn provided that they are plain gloves;
(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and
(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip.

Perhaps the harshest occurrence of a penalty incurred under this Rule was at last year’s USGA Senior Women’s Amateur at the Honors Course in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Andrea Kraus, 50, of Baltimore, Md., was playing in her first USGA Senior Women’s Amateur and was lying dormie 7 after the 11th hole when she was disqualified. Her caddie had a short string of yarn attached to his divot repair tool that he had used during the round to judge the direction of the wind. I do understand the reasoning behind the disqualification, but would be surprised if every Rules official would have arrived at the same ruling.

Examples of equipment that may not be used in an unusual manner in a golfing context are;

A compass, which could be used to determine wind direction, the direction of the grain in the greens, or for some other similar reason. (Decision 14-3/4). It is for this reason that iPhones, which have an inbuilt compass that cannot be removed, may not be used during competitions as a distance measuring device, even if there is a Local Rule permitting the use of distance measuring devices. (See this link for more information on this subject).
A weight suspended on a string and used as plumb line. Decision 14-3/11.
A bottled drink on the putting green used as a level to gauge the slope of the green. Decision 14-3/12.5
A golf ball warmer or hand warmer purposely used to heat a ball. Decision 14-3/13.5 (but see below).
A music or broadcast listening device, whether or not using headphones, while making a stroke or for a prolonged period of time during a stipulated round. Decision 14-3/17.

There are two important exceptions to Rule 14-3, which can be summarised as ‘for medical reasons’ and ‘traditionally accepted’;

1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.

2. A player is not in breach of this Rule if he uses equipment in a traditionally accepted manner.

Here are some examples of situations where the second exception applies;

Although a booklet containing information on the length and topography of the holes on a course (stroke-saver) is an artificial device, its use has been traditionally accepted
A putter may be used as a plumb-line to assist in determining the slope on a putting green (as in the photo above).
Although a hand warmer is an artificial device, its use solely to warm the hands is traditionally accepted. Decision 14-3/13.
A towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip of a club to assist in gripping it. Rule 14-3c.

So, golfers should think twice before using any type of equipment in an unusual manner; it is probably not permitted by the Rules unless it meets the above exceptions.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

Has your Club/Society/Group considered running a quiz on the Rules? It's a great way to get to know the Rules better. I have three quizzes (General, Match Play and Juniors), comprising 4 rounds of 9 questions, which save you the chore of thinking-up suitable questions and providing accurate answers. Click on this link to learn more.

Amended Decision on Improving Line of Play

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 04 May 2012 21:18:00 +0000

If you cannot see this photo click on this link

With so much discussion centered on the change to the Definition of ‘Addressing the Ball’ and its effect on Rule 13-2b, a significant clarification to the Rules of Golf has received less attention than I think it deserves. It concerns a less rigid interpretation of the word ‘improve’ with regard to Rule 13-2, Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play.

I have provided an illustration of this in the photo above. Prior to 1st January this year a player would have incurred a penalty if they replaced the partly attached divot on their line of play to the hole, even though they intended their next stroke to be a full 9-iron to the putting green. Decision 13-2/0.5 confirms that there is no breach of the Rules unless the player intends to putt across the repaired area, which is obviously highly unlikely in this scenario.

In explaining this change I am going to quote freely from the new Decision 13-2/0.5, which clarifies that, in the context of Rule 13-2,

“improve” means to change for the better so that the player gains a potential advantage with respect to the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing, his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole, or the area in which he is to drop or place a ball.

Therefore, merely changing an area protected by Rule 13-2 prior to making a stroke will not be a breach of Rule 13-2, unless it creates a potential advantage for the player in his play.

The Decision lists three useful examples that are unlikely to create such a potential advantage.

If a player repairs a small pitch-mark on his line of play five yards in front of his ball prior to making a 150-yard approach shot from through the green;
If a player accidentally knocks down several leaves from a tree in his area of intended swing with a practice swing, but there are still so many leaves or branches remaining that the area of intended swing has not been materially affected; or
If a player whose ball lies in thick rough 180 yards from the green, walks forward and pulls strands of grass on his line of play and tosses them in the air to determine the direction of the wind.

Conversely, examples of changes that are likely to create such a potential advantage and therefore incur the general penalty are:

If a player repairs a pitch-mark through the green five yards in front of his ball and on his line of play prior to making a stroke from off the putting green that might be affected by the pitch-mark (e.g., a putt or a low-running shot);
If a player accidentally knocks down a single leaf from a tree in his area of intended swing with a practice swing, but, as this was one of very few leaves that might either interfere with his swing or fall and thereby distract him, the area of intended swing has been materially affected; or
If a player pulls strands of grass from rough a few inches behind his ball to test the wind, but thereby reduces a potential distraction for the player, or resistance to his club, in the area of his intended swing.

The second examples in both of the above sections provide welcome clarification to a golfing situation that occurs quite regularly on the course and has caused much confusion over the years. I know that personally I have been involved in several discussions about whether a player incurs a penalty because they have dislodged a leaf, or leaves, while simulating the stroke that they are about to make.

The new Decision summarises the situation on improving the line of play as follows;

The determination as to whether a player has gained a potential advantage from his actions is made by reference to the situation immediately prior to his stroke. If there is a reasonable possibility that the player's action has created a potential advantage, the player is in breach of Rule 13-2.

On a totally different matter, I have just heard about the Tiger Woods lost ball incident at Quail Hollow. There will be a lot of criticism for the ruling that was given in his favour but after reading this account I think that the walking Rules Official probably made the right call.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

I strongly recommend that all golfers with an interest in the Rules purchase 'Decisions on the Rules of Golf 2012' for only £9.89 from Amazon via this link. If you do not want to purchase it for yourself you should consider purchasing it for your Club or Society. If you are going to purchase this book or anything else from Amazon, please use this link, as I will then make a few cents affiliate commission.

Committees May Not Change the Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:07:00 +0000

The Definition of Committee in the Rules of Golf book is as follows;

The “Committee’’ is the committee in charge of the competition or, if the matter does not arise in a competition, the committee in charge of the course.

Rule 33 describes the various responsibilities of the Committee under eight headings;

Conditions; Waiving Rule
The Course
Times of Starting and Groups
Handicap Stroke Table
Score Card
Decision of Ties
Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
Local Rules

These responsibilities are onerous and in many member-owned Golf Clubs and Societies the Committee (or Committees if there is a separate course Committee) is/are comprised of volunteers who do not receive any compensation for their hard work. However, their responsibilities are limited, in that they have no power to waive or modify a Rule of Golf without permission from the R&A or USGA.

From time to time I hear about over-enthusiastic Committees that disqualify players for not conforming to conditions that they have imposed, often with the good intention of making life easier for the scorer(s) responsible for checking the accuracy of returned score cards. Here are four examples of what I am referring to;

The Committee required partners in a four-ball Stableford competition to enter their initials at the top of the A and B columns of the score card, where the gross scores are entered, and disqualified a pair for not doing so.
The Committee required that alterations made on score cards be initialled or the card would not be accepted?
The Committee introduced a condition of competition that competitors must enter their scores into a computer or be disqualified?
The Committee disqualified a player for returning a different score card from the one that was given to them before they commenced their round.

There are various Decisions on Rule 6-6a and 6-6b that show that Committees cannot penalise players for any of the above situations, because they have not breached any Rule of Golf. But that is not necessarily the end of it. The answer in Decision 6-6b/8, relating to the Committee’s requirement for competitors to enter their scores into a computer states;

However, while it is not permissible to penalise a player under the Rules of Golf for failing to enter his score into a computer, a Committee may, in order to assist in the administration of the competition, introduce a "club regulation" to this effect and provide disciplinary sanctions (e.g., ineligibility to play in the next club competition(s)) for failure to act in accordance with the regulation.

So, whilst players who do not conform to ‘club regulations’ that have been introduced by a Committee to assist in administration of competitions, may not be penalised strokes, or be disqualified, they may be subjected to other disciplinary sanctions that could effectively be more punitive. My recommendation is to accede to such conditions, as they are designed to make life easier for those who have to administer the competitions.

Good golfing,

Have you checked out my new web site yet? Click here for an indispensable resource for anyone who wishes to improve their knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Golf.

Ball Moving After Address – Rule 18-2b

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:03:00 +0000

Photo: perfectconnectiongolfswing.com

Following the recent amendment to Rule 18-2b I think that readers might welcome some examples of the circumstances in which a penalty is incurred. The situation is far from simple. First, this is the revised wording;

If a player’s ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.

The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

It is likely, that the incident that caused this Rule to be revised occurred at the unusually windy 2008 British Open at Royal Birkdale, when a player, whose ball lay in a bunker, was wary of even approaching it, as he was concerned that the strong winds could cause the ball to move at any moment. After he had eventually taken his stance the ball did move. There was no doubt that it was the wind that caused the ball to move, yet the player incurred a penalty. This situation caused concern to the Ruling Bodies as there was no way the player could have protected himself from penalty (as he could have done through the green or on the putting green by not grounding his club). There were several subsequent situations, mostly on the putting green, that brought the Rule under even more scrutiny. While the old Rule was black and white, it could sometimes result in inequitable penalties being incurred in situations where the player had obviously not caused their ball to move.

I am providing my opinion of the appropriate ruling in 6 different scenarios. However, the cause of the ball moving can be subjective and I am avoiding the issue that I blogged about last week of how far behind the ball is ‘immediately’ in this context. Remember, that stance is no longer a requirement for addressing ball (see this link).

1. On a windless day, on a level putting green, a player grounds their club immediately behind their ball and as they prepare to make their stroke the ball moves. It is not known whether the grounding of the club was the cause of the ball moving.
Ruling: one stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced, Rule 18-2b.
Note: As there is no obvious reason why the ball moved after the player had addressed it the player is deemed to have moved it.

2. On a windy day, on a level putting green, a player grounds their club immediately behind their ball and as they prepare to make their stroke the ball moves. It is obvious that the wind caused the ball to move.
Ruling: no penalty and the ball must be played from where it came to rest, Exception to Rule 18-2b.
Note: It was known or virtually certain that it was the wind that caused the ball to move and not the player.

3. On a windless day, on a putting green steeply sloping down to the hole, a player grounds their club immediately behind their ball and as they prepare to make their stroke the ball moves nearer to the hole. Everyone present agrees that the player could not have caused their ball to move.
Ruling: (edited 21st April 2012) one stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced, Decision 18-2b/11.
Note: Gravity is not in itself an element that should be considered when applying the Exception to Rule 18-2b and so the player is still deemed to have moved their ball after taking address.

4. Through the green, a player takes their stance but does not ground their club and their ball moves. Everyone present agrees that the player could not have caused their ball to move.
Ruling: no penalty and the ball must be played from where it came to rest, Decision 18-2b/1.
Note: Stance is not now a requirement for addressing the ball.

5. In the rough, a player grounds their club a short distance behind their ball, so as not to disturb the long grass growing around it. After a second or so the ball sinks further into the grass. Everyone present agrees that the player could not have caused their ball to move.
Ruling: no penalty and the ball must be played from where it came to rest, Decision 18-2b/4.
Note: The player had not grounded their club in front of or immediately behind the ball within the Definition of Address.

6. A player’s ball is at rest. They rest their club on the grass immediately behind their ball and it moves.
Ruling: penalty of one stroke and the ball must be replaced, Decision 18-2b/5.
Note: If the club has been rested on the grass to the point where it would support the weight of the club, the club is considered to be grounded, so the ball has been addressed and Rule 18-2b applies.

You will note that if a player grounds their club according the Definition and there is no obvious cause of the ball moving such as wind or another element, the player is still deemed to have moved their ball under Rule 18-2b. Of course, there is no change in the Rules where a player does cause their ball to move; there is a one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a, notwithstanding the weather conditions prevailing or the slope at where the ball was at rest, and the ball must be replaced.

I think most Rules enthusiasts welcome this change to the Rules, but as I said at the start it is still far from simple to arrive at the correct ruling.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

I am delighted at the positive response to my three quizzes on the Rules of Golf; Juniors, Match Play and General. I have developed these quizzes for use in Golf Clubs and Societies who wish to raise the awareness of Rules amongst their members. Click here for more details.

Addressing the Ball – Update from R&A / USGA

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:13:00 +0000

Soon after the 2012 amendments to the Rules of Golf became effective, on 1st January, I wrote a blog on ‘Addressing the Ball’ which included the following passage;

“It is less obvious why the second change to the definition has been introduced and it has already created much discussion and disagreement between Rules experts. How far is “immediately” in the phrase “has grounded his club immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball”? Does two inches (5 centimetres) qualify, or does it mean “any closer and it would be touching the ball”, as has been suggested by authoritative sources connected with the USGA? In my opinion, the player in the photo above has not grounded their club “immediately” behind their ball and so they have not addressed their ball. This is bound to cause a lot of arguments and I am very surprised that the Ruling Bodies did not clarify the introduction of the word “immediately” with a relevant Decision.”

It now appears that the reason for using the words "immediately behind" instead of, for example, "close to" was to exclude the situation where a player who grounds their club near their feet and then slides it towards the ball from being considered to have addressed their ball before the club was positioned behind the ball. Unfortunately, the use of the word ‘immediately’ raised other issues that it seems had not been contemplated.

Well, the Ruling Bodies have now responded to the situation by taking the relatively unusual step of issuing a clarification, with reference to the new definition of ‘Addressing the Ball’, on page 22 of the Rules of Golf. The statement specifically deals with the newly introduced phrase “immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball”.

If the golf club is grounded “closely” behind the ball in a position where it would be customary for a player to ground the club prior to making a particular stroke, then the club is considered to have been grounded “immediately behind the ball.” The same interpretation of the definition would apply if a player grounds his or her golf club “closely” in front of the ball prior to making a stroke.
Check here for the full statement issued by R&A.
Check here for the same statement from USGA.

I welcome this clarification from the Ruling Bodies and am pleased that they did not try to define exactly how close to the ball the club has to be to be ‘grounded’ in terms of inches or centimetres within the definition of address. In my opinion, this may be significantly further behind the ball when it is buried in the rough than when it lies on the putting green. Of course, the question as to whether a player has grounded their club or not is still subjective and even rules officials may not make the same judgements.

One minor, non-related point is that I notice that the clarification above includes the phrase, “if a player grounds his or her golf club”. As someone who promotes the singular use of they, to avoid being gender specific, I am pleased that the Ruling Bodies have recognised both genders in this statement.

I intend to return to this tricky subject of when a ball is addressed, with examples, in the next week, or so.

Good golfing,

My ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series is now complete (99 issues comprising over 200 photo/diagrams and 400 questions, answers, references and explanations) and is for sale at just US $9.00 (Eu €7.00 / St £6.00). Click here for more information.

Luke Donald and His Smudged Score Card

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:14:00 +0000

Luke Donald

The Augusta National Golf Club Tournament Committee does a great job in organising the Masters, the favourite event of the year for most golf fans. But sometimes they get it embarrassingly wrong. This was the case yesterday when having finished his round, world No.1 golfer, Luke Donald, spent a frustrating hour or so listening to stories that he may be disqualified from playing in the rest of the tournament for signing for a wrong score. The media, was buzzing with the news that he had signed for a 3 on the Par-4 5th hole, when in fact he had bogeyed this hole. The bizarre explanation appears to be that someone who had been eating a doughnut (!) faxed a copy of the signed score card to the official scoring unit who wrongly interpreted a smudged digit ‘5’ for a ‘3’. I am sure that you are as surprised as I am to know that the august body at Augusta still uses the antiquated fax as a method of communicating the players’ scores; I wonder what their sponsor, IBM, thinks of that.

I was following events at the Masters on Twitter (@BarryRhodes999Q) when this incident occurred and was surprised at how much ill-informed comment there was. One tweeter asserted that Donald could not be disqualified as the total score of 75 he signed for was correct and it didn’t matter what had been written in his individual hole scores, whereas another proclaimed that he would be disqualified for signing for a total score which did not add up. More and more I realize that Twitter is a great tool for keeping abreast of what is happening at live sports events, but that you have to carefully to filter out the misinformation.

Here are some relevant Rules factors concerning the accuracy of a competitor’s score card;
•    The competitor is responsible for the correctness of their score recorded for each hole (Rule 6-6d).
•    The Committee is responsible for the addition of scores (Rule 33-5).
•    If the competitor records a wrong total score, the Committee must correct the error, without penalty to the competitor (Decision 6-6d/2).
•    If the competitor returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, they are disqualified (Rule 6-6d).
•    If the competitor returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands (Rule 6-6d).
•    Any alterations on the score card do not have to be initialled (6-6a/6).
•    No alterations may be made to the score card after the competitor has returned it to the Committee (Rule 6-6c).

Now back to watching the Masters for me.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

Those of you that have purchased the iPhone / Android app, ‘Golf Rules Quiz’ will be pleased to know that it has now been updated (free app download) with the amendments to the Rules effective from January 1st 2012. If you do not have this app, which contains hundreds of my Rules questions, answers, references and explanations in a self-test format, you can purchase it here for just $4.99.

Gopher, Crawfish, Half-Eaten Pear and Poison Ivy

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:30:00 +0000

Gopher – a small burrowing rodent endemic to North America

There are many unusual references in the Rules of Golf and the Decisions on the Rules of Golf and for no particular reason I am listing some of them here;

Gopher - Part of the Definition of Burrowing Animal:
A “burrowing animal” is an animal (other than a worm, insect or the like) that makes a hole for habitation or shelter, such as a rabbit, mole, groundhog, gopher or salamander.

Crawfish - Decision 25-1b/18:
Q. When a crawfish digs a hole it creates a sizable mound of mud. If such a mound interferes with a player's stance or swing, does he get relief under Rule 25-1b?
A. Yes, provided the player's ball does not lie in a water hazard - see first paragraph of Rule 25-1b. A crawfish is a burrowing animal.

Half-eaten Pear – Decision 23/3:
Q. A half-eaten pear lies directly in front of a ball in a bunker and there is no pear tree in the vicinity of the bunker. In the circumstances, is the pear an obstruction rather than a loose impediment, in which case the player could remove it without penalty?
A. No. A pear is a natural object. When detached from a tree it is a loose impediment. The fact that a pear has been half-eaten and there is no pear tree in the vicinity does not alter the status of the pear.

Poison Ivy – Decision 1-4/11:
Q. According to Decision 1-4/10, a ball lying near a live rattlesnake or a bees' nest is a "dangerous situation" and relief should be granted in equity.
If a player's ball comes to rest in or near an area of plants such as poison ivy, cacti or stinging nettles, should the provisions of Decision 1-4/10 apply?
A. No. The player must either play the ball as it lies or, if applicable, proceed under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable). Decision 1-4/10 contemplates a situation which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course. Unpleasant lies are a common occurrence which players must accept.

Saliva – Decision 25/6:
Q. What is the status of saliva?
A. In equity (Rule 1-4), saliva may be treated as either an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1) or a loose impediment (Rule 23-1), at the option of the player.

Plumb-Line – Decision 14-3/11:
Q. Is a plumb-line, i.e. a weight suspended on a string, an artificial device within the meaning of the term in Rule 14-3?
A. Yes. If a player uses such a device to assist him in his play he is in breach of Rule 14-3.

Parked Car – Decision 24/8
Q. A player's ball lies under a parked car. What is the procedure?
A. If the car is readily movable, it should be treated as a movable obstruction and moved - see Rule 24-1.
If the car is not readily movable, it should be treated as an immovable obstruction and the player is entitled to relief as provided in Rule 24-2b.

Unlike the Rules of Golf booklet the Decisions on the Rules of Golf are interesting and are easy to read and understand. An excellent index makes it easy to reference situations that you may experience on the course, or discuss in the bar. I strongly recommend that all golfers with an interest in the Rules purchase this book for only £9.89 from Amazon at this link, if not for yourself then for your Club. If you do purchase the Decisions book, or anything else from Amazon, using this link I make a few cents affiliate commission, but it does not cost you any more.

Good Golfing

Please check out my new web site at http://www.RhodesRulesSchool.com – an indispensable resource for anyone who wishes to improve their knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Golf.

Fairly Taking a Stance - Rule 13-2

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:00 +0000

I am sure that most of us have been faced with a situation where we find our ball lying in an area of thick undergrowth, under the low-hanging branches of a tree or a bush. Rule 13-2 tells us that we must not improve the area of our intended stance or swing by moving, bending or breaking anything growing, but that no penalty is incurred if we do so in fairly taking a stance. Some players query exactly what this exception, ‘fairly taking a stance’ means.

I am not a fan of the hackneyed script in this USGA produced video with Annika Sörenstam, but it does help clarify the Rule.

If you are receiving this blog by email and cannot view the video click here.

So, when ‘fairly taking their stance’ the player is required to do so in the least intrusive manner that results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. Decision 13-2/1 provides a more detailed explanation of how to interpret ‘fairly’ in this context;

Without "fairly," the exception would permit improvement of position or lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play by anything that could be said to be taking a stance. The use of "fairly" is intended to limit the player to what is reasonably necessary to take a stance for the selected stroke without unduly improving the position of the ball, his lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. Thus, in taking his stance for the selected stroke, the player should select the least intrusive course of action which results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. The player is not entitled to a normal stance or swing. He must accommodate the situation in which the ball is found and take a stance as normal as the circumstances permit. What is fair must be determined in the light of all the circumstances.

Examples of actions which do constitute fairly taking a stance are:
• backing into a branch or young sapling if that is the only way to take a stance for the selected stroke, even if this causes the branch to move out of the way or the sapling to bend or break.
• bending a branch of a tree with the hands in order to get under the tree to play a ball.

Examples of actions which do not constitute fairly taking a stance are:
• deliberately moving, bending or breaking branches with the hands, a leg or the body to get them out of the way of the backswing or stroke.
• standing on a branch to prevent it interfering with the backswing or stroke.
• hooking one branch on another or braiding two weeds for the same purpose.
• bending with a hand a branch obscuring the ball after the stance has been taken.
• bending an interfering branch with the hands, a leg or the body in taking a stance when the stance could have been taken without bending the branch.

Now, permit me to draw your attention to my new web site, www.RhodesRulesSchool.com, where I have attempted to provide an indispensable resource for anyone who wishes to improve their knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Golf. In particular, check out how to obtain the all 99 issues of my photo series and my brand new, carefully devised quizzes; Juniors Quiz, General Quiz (for Club and Society golfers) and Match Play Quiz (highlighting the Rules differences in match play golf).

Good golfing,

Left, Right and One Handed Golf Rules Queries

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Here are five queries I have received that are loosely connected, as per the title;

•    May a player use both left and right-handed clubs during a round?

Yes, there is nothing in the Rules that penalises a player from carrying whichever clubs they like, providing the clubs are conforming, and the player does not use more than the permitted 14.

•    May a player use a right-handed club with a left-handed stroke?

Yes, a ball may be struck with any part of the head of the club. So a right-handed player, whose ball lies in a position whereby they cannot make a right-handed stroke at it, may either turn their clubhead 180º to hit their ball with its face, or use the back of the clubhead to strike their ball from a left-handed stance. Rule 14-1.

•    Is the nearest point of relief always in a different place for a left-handed player than it is for a right-handed player?

Yes, with the very occasional exception where the points may be equidistant. Definition of Nearest Point of Relief. (If you are unsure as to why this is so, check out my video on Nearest Point of Relief here. http://www.rhodesrulesschool.com/videos/

•    May a player putt their ball one-handed into the hole whilst holding the flagstick with the other?

Yes, providing they do not use the flagstick for assistance, e.g. by leaning on it, and also that the ball does not touch the flagstick. Decision 17-1/5.

•    If a player, who cannot play their natural right-handed stroke because of the position of their ball against a tree, decides to play left-handed away from the tree, may they take relief if they then find that their stance for the left-handed stroke means that one of their feet will be in casual water?

Yes, the player may take relief without penalty from the casual water in these circumstances and may then play their next stroke either right or left-handed. Rule 25-1b.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

If you have not yet subscribed to the ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series, you can do so here (free weekly emails using photos and diagrams to pose questions, with answers and references, of Rules situations that we may encounter on the golf course). If you are a subscriber and would like to purchase the set you can now do so at this link.

Differences in Match Play Rules (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:11:00 +0000

Photo by Stuart Franklin/Getty Images North America, 2009

Two blogs ago I covered four areas in which the Rules of match play differ from those of stroke play. Here are some more, but please remember that the two blogs should be read together to obtain the full picture;

•    A player may practice anywhere on the course, on the day of the match. Rule 7-1.
•    If you play a stroke and your ball hits your opponent, his caddie, or his equipment you can choose whether to replay the stroke or accept it and play your next shot from where it comes to rest. Rule 19-3. This might not seem fair if your wild shank has hit your opponent where it hurts and stops at his feet, but that is the Rule, so use it when it benefits you.
•    Similarly, if a player, when starting a hole, plays a ball from outside the teeing ground, there is no penalty, but the opponent may immediately require the player to cancel the stroke and play a ball from within the teeing ground.
•    Here is an unusual one, which not many match players know about. If a putt from the putting green hits another ball at rest on the putting green, whether it is your side or your opponents' there is no penalty in match play, whereas there is a two stokes penalty in stroke play. Rule 19-5. Just play your ball from where it comes to rest and ensure that the ball that you moved is replaced back to where it was.
•    You are not required to keep a score card in match play, as each hole is either won by one side or the other, or halved between them, and the winner is the player who wins the most holes. For example, if a player is 3 holes up and there are only two holes of the stipulated round remaining the match is over with a result of 3 and 2.
•    In stroke play players may not suspend play for bad weather, unless they consider there is danger from lightning. If they do, the Committee would be justified in disqualifying them. Not so in match play, where players may discontinue their match by agreement, unless by so doing the competition is delayed.
•    If a match is discontinued by agreement, e.g. due to darkness or threat of lightning, the match must be resumed from where it was discontinued; the players do not start the round again.
•    Unlike stroke play, where you have an obligation to your fellow competitors to report every breach of a Rule that you witness, you do not have to in match play situations, as you may disregard, or overlook any breach of a Rule by your opponent. The reason for this is that only you, or your side, are affected. It does not affect anyone other entrant in the match play competition. However, you still must not say anything to your opponent, as under Rule 1-3 there cannot be agreement with your opponent to waive any penalty incurred by either side.

• If a player incurs a penalty that was not observed by their opponent they must inform the opponent as soon as practicable. If the player fails to do so before their opponent makes their next stroke they lose the hole, Rule 9-2b. This penalty also applies if a player gives incorrect information during play of a hole regarding the number of strokes taken and does not correct the mistake before their opponent makes their next stroke.

Finally, players competing against each other in a match are opponents; in stroke play a fellow-competitor is any person with whom the competitor plays their round. Neither is partner of the other.

I hope that by overviewing these differences you will understand why it is not permitted to play a stroke play competition at the same time as a match play round of golf, Rule 33-1. Match play is a great format but when you play make sure that you understand where the Rules differ from those that you are more familiar with.

Good golfing,

Remember that you can purchase the full, updated set of 99 issues of the ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series as a downloadable document for only US $7.99, or EU €5.99, or St £4.99. Just login to PayPal and make payment to my account (barry at BarryRhodes dot com in email address format) and I will send you the document straight away.

Lee Westwood's Ball in Lady's Shirt - Rule 19-1

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:39:00 +0000

Lee Westwood experienced an unusual rub of the green during his Accenture Match Play semi-final against Rory McIlroy last Saturday. His tee shot on the par-5 13th hole was pulled a long way left into a crowd of spectators. His ball bounced once and came to rest lodged in the sweater of a lady spectator. Fortunately, she was not harmed in any way and it was all smiles as Westwood awkwardly approached her to find that his ball was still down the back of her yellow sweater. He left another spectator, her husband perhaps, to retrieve his ball and hand it back to him.

For those receiving this blog by email click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLqhWo40HzU

Here are the main points to remember if the same thing happens to you;
•    A spectator is an outside agency.
•    The reference point is where the ball first came to rest in or on the outside agency (in this video, the reference point would not have changed had the lady had walked 250 yards nearer to the hole with the ball lodged in her shirt, as requested by Westwood’s caddie!).
•    Except on the putting green, the ball must be dropped and not placed (Nick Faldo famously got this wrong a few years ago and engaged in an embarrassing encounter with an intimidated, but unyielding Swedish Rules Official, which is now regularly shown on training courses for Referees).
•    If a ball is deflected or stopped by an outside agency following a stroke on the putting green (obviously, far less common) the procedure is different.

Here is the wording of the relevant Rule 19-1;

If a player’s ball in motion is accidentally deflected or stopped by any outside agency, it is a rub of the green, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies, except:
a. If a player’s ball in motion after a stroke other than on the putting green comes to rest in or on any moving or animate outside agency, the ball must through the green or in a hazard be dropped, or on the putting green be placed, as near as possible to the spot directly under the place where the ball came to rest in or on the outside agency, but not nearer the hole, and
b. If a player’s ball in motion after a stroke on the putting green is deflected or stopped by, or comes to rest in or on, any moving or animate outside agency, except a worm, insect or the like, the stroke is cancelled. The ball must be replaced and replayed.
If the ball is not immediately recoverable, another ball may be substituted.

This incident, captured on video, obviously provided a good opportunity for me to explain a Rule that is often misunderstood, so I am holding the second part of my blog on ‘Differences on Match Play Rules’ until next week.

Good golfing,

P.S. If you have been receiving the 'Rhodes Rules School' photo series you may be interested to hear that, having updated the complete set of 99 issues with the January amendments to the Rules, I have now made them available as a downloadable file for just US $7.99 / EU €5.99 / St £4.99. Just login to PayPal and make payment to my account (barry at barryrhodes dot com) and I will fulfil your request the same day.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

Differences in Match Play Rules (1)

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:52:00 +0000


Photo by Isifa/Getty Images

With the Accenture Match Play Championship taking place this week in The Ritz-Carlton Golf Club, Marana, Arizona this week, and those of us in the Northern Hemisphere preparing for our Inter-Club match play competitions, I thought that it would be timely to summarise the main differences between stroke play and match play.

The first point to make is that the Rules of Golf state that certain specific Rules governing match play are so substantially different from those governing stroke play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and isn’t permitted, Rule 33-1. Hands-up those of you that enter a singles stroke play competition, but because there are four of you in a grouping, you also play a four-ball better ball for a wager. I thought so!

Here are four of the main differences why combining the two formats is impracticable;
•    In stroke play the general penalty for a breach of the Rules is two strokes; in match play it is loss of hole. However, any breach of the Rules that incurs a one stroke penalty in stroke play is also a one stroke penalty in match play.
•    Whereas in stroke play the player must finish every hole by holing out, in match play a player may concede a stroke to his opponent so that he can pick-up without holing out. A player may also concede the hole, or the match. Once given a concession can’t be declined, or withdrawn under any circumstances. So, if you concede a short putt to your opponent, but he putts anyway and misses, it doesn’t matter because he is still considered to have holed out with the putt for the purposes of the match. Rule 2-4.
•    If you are unsure of a Rule, or a procedure, in match play the Rules don’t permit you to play a second ball, as they do in stroke play. What you have to do, is try and resolve the issue with your opponent. If you can’t agree, a claim has to be made before teeing-off at the next hole. You must notify your opponent that you’re making a claim, agree the facts of the situation and make it clear that you’ll be asking for a Committee ruling. Rule 2-5.
•    In both stroke play and match play when balls are to be played from the teeing ground the person with the honour plays first and anywhere else on the course the ball farthest from the hole is played first. However, there is no penalty in stroke play for playing in the wrong order, unless players have agreed to do so to give one of them an advantage, in which case they’re both disqualified. It is different in match play. If a player makes a stroke when his opponent should have played first, there is still no penalty, but the opponent may immediately require the player to cancel that stroke and play again, in the correct order, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played. In other words, if you think your opponent played a bad shot when he played out of turn you say nothing, but if he played a good shot you can ask him to replace his ball where it was and play again, after you, in the hope that his next shot won’t be as good.

There are a few more differences between the stroke play and match play formats, which I will save for another week.

Good golfing,

Those of you that have been receiving my ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series from the beginning will know that I have recently completed the series with the 99th issue. I have now made the necessary changes for the 2012 amendments and am making the full set available as a downloadable file for just US $7.99 / EU €5.99 / St £4.99. Just login to PayPal and make payment to my account (barry at barryrhodes dot com in email address format). From the many testimonials I regularly receive I know that golfers of all abilities find this series of 99 pages of questions, answers, references, and explanations of incidents regularly experienced on the course, illustrated with photos and diagrams, provides an excellent way to obtain a better understanding of the Rules. Click here and select 'Send Money' to make payment by PayPal (most credit cards) using the email address above.

Peter Whiteford's Disqualification

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:07:00 +0000

Photo: Press Trust of India

Scot Peter Whiteford, who has yet to win on the tour circuit, was disqualified from the final round of the Avantha Masters in New Delhi over a ball-moving incident on the 18th hole of his third round, when he was lying just one stroke off the lead. He had just double-bogeyed the 17th hole and was about to play his third stroke to the par-5 18th when he thought that his ball may have moved. Although he asked his caddie, fellow competitor and at least one other outside agent standing close by, none of whom saw his ball move, he unwisely went ahead and played the ball as it lay. I was not watching the TV coverage of this incident and no video has appeared on the web yet, but he had obviously addressed his ball when it moved, which meant that he incurred a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2b. (Edit Feb 20th 2012: There is now a YouTube clip of the incident here.In my opinion, it is clear from his body language that he thought that his ball had moved.) Here is an official statement from The European Tour’s Chief Referee, John Paramor, regarding the disqualification;

“On the 18th fairway during the third round while playing his approach shot, Peter Whiteford felt that his ball may have moved and for confirmation asked his caddy, a fellow competitor and a TV cameraman, who said they didn’t think it had, and so he continued on to finish the hole and sign his scorecard for 72.

Overnight several viewers contacted the European Tour website saying that Peter Whiteford’s ball had in fact moved on the 18th hole. This was reviewed by the Rules Committee who were able to determine that the ball had in fact moved. Peter Whiteford should have incurred a penalty of one stroke and replaced the ball. As he did not do so, he was disqualified for signing for a score lower than taken for failing to include the penalty he had incurred.

The Rules Committee considered the decision 33-7/4.5 which allows a committee in certain circumstances to modify the disqualification penalty and apply the appropriate penalty stroke(s) if the player could not have reasonably known he had incurred a penalty. If Peter Whiteford had contacted a member of the Rules Team before signing his scorecard, the footage would have been reviewed at the time and he would have averted the disqualification penalty.”

So, what should Peter Whiteford have done in this situation where he was not sure if the ball had moved, or not? As he was playing in a tour event he could have summoned a walking Rules Official to make a decision, having reviewed the evidence. Most of us do not have that luxury in our weekly competitions, but whenever there is a doubt as to procedure the Rules provide a solution whereby we may play a second ball, under Rule3-3, and report the facts of the matter to the Committee immediately after the round. See my blog on ‘When May You Play a Second Ball’.

As soon as Whiteford’s ball moved after he had addressed it he incurred a penalty of one stroke. However, when he failed to replace it where it was before it moved and then played it, the penalty increased to two strokes, under Rule 20-7, for playing his ball from the wrong place. He could still have avoided the ultimate penalty of disqualification if he had gone to an official and told them about his concern as to whether his ball had moved or not before handing in his score card. Because he did not do so, the card that he returned had a score lower than that taken, due to the two strokes penalty not having been recorded, and the Rules Committee had no option but to disqualify him.

Naturally, there have been many comments decrying those that phoned-in to report the breach, but once again I have to make the point that most Pro golfers would rather incur the penalty (even disqualification) than go through the rest of their career with an accusation that they only won (or had done well) in a competition because they avoided a penalty for a known breach of the Rules. In my opinion, European Ryder Cup professional, Oliver Wilson, did not do his reputation much good with this tweet on his Twitter account;

“One reason it takes so long to play is because you have to call ref to cover your back at the slightest things. Better rules would help”

He then made it worse with this one;

“agree we should know rules,but I was crap at school which is why I play sport, I don't trust myself under pressure to get them all right.”

So, hire a caddie who does!

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

If you are not subscribing to my ‘Rhodes Rules School’ photo series, you don’t know what you are missing! Here are four comments I received in the past week;

“Hi Barry, I want to thank you for the informative info on the rules of golf. I found out there was quite a lot of rules i didn't know and I have been playing golf for 60 years. I'm looking forward to the next round of instruction.” DF

“I share your email with my playing partners each week. I really look forward to your email each week and its great to test our fairly extensive knowledge (we are single figure golfers). We certainly don’t get all the answers right!” GC

“I’m so glad they’ll be more of these helpful discussions. I learn something new (or clarify which I thought to be correct) every time. Thanks so much for being so generous with your time and knowledge.” JG

“Barry, your information is terrific. I have sent on your email address to hundreds of golfers in XXXX. We are suggesting that all of our clubs have their rules chairmen learn from you. Thanks for the good work in keeping the rules in everyone's mind on a weekly basis and for the great photos that make learning fun.” G

Click here for a free subscription of my weekly 'Rhodes Rules School' emails.

Known or Virtually Certain

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:07:00 +0000

In order to obtain relief without penalty from GUR
it must be known or virtually certain that the
ball came to rest in the abnormal ground condition.
In the absence of such knowledge or certainty,
a player must proceed under Rule 27 (Lost Ball).

When I was preparing last week’s blog on the main changes that have been made to the Rules over the past 20 years I was reminded that it was in the 2008 changes to the Rules that the term “reasonable evidence” was replaced by the much stronger requirement of “known or virtually certain”. This revised term is used in the following Rules in circumstances when a player cannot find their ball;
•   Rule 18-1 Ball at Rest Moved by Outside Agency
•   Rule 24-3 Ball in Obstruction not Found
•   Rule 25-1c Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition not Found
•   Rule 26 Water Hazards (Including Water Hazards)
•   Rule 27-1 Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes

It is obvious that by changing “reasonable evidence” to “known or virtually certain” the Ruling Bodies wanted to emphasise that this is not a ‘get out of jail free card’ for a player that cannot find their ball. Whilst the Ruling Bodies do not go as far as putting a percentage on the degree of certainty that is required to avail of relief options, they have provided us with a lengthy explanation of how ‘known or virtually certain’ is to be applied to rulings in Decision 26-1/1;

When a ball has been struck towards a water hazard and cannot be found, a player may not assume that his ball is in the water hazard simply because there is a possibility that the ball may be in the water hazard. In order to proceed under Rule 26-1, it must be "known or virtually certain" that the ball is in the water hazard. In the absence of "knowledge or virtual certainty" that it lies in a water hazard, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost somewhere other than in a water hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

When a player's ball cannot be found, "knowledge" may be gained that his ball is in a water hazard in a number of ways. The player or his caddie or other members of his match or group may actually observe the ball disappear into the water hazard. Evidence provided by other reliable witnesses may also establish that the ball is in the water hazard. Such evidence could come from a referee, an observer, spectators or other outside agencies. It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.

In the absence of "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, Rule 26-1 requires there to be "virtual certainty" that the player's ball is in the water hazard in order to proceed under this Rule. Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified.

In determining whether "virtual certainty" exists, some of the relevant factors in the area of the water hazard to be considered include topography, turf conditions, grass heights, visibility, weather conditions and the proximity of trees, bushes and abnormal ground conditions.

The same principles would apply for a ball that may have been moved by an outside agency (Rule 18-1) or a ball that has not been found and may be in an obstruction (Rule 24-3) or an abnormal ground condition (Rule 25-1c). (Revised)

So, in circumstances where the ‘known or virtually certain’ test has to be applied players must ask the question, “could the ball be anywhere else on the golf course other than in the obstruction/abnormal ground condition/water hazard?” If the answer is “yes,” then the ball must be treated as lost under penalty of stroke and distance, Rule 27-1. Known or virtually certain is to be taken literally. It is not a best guess or maybe. The ball cannot be anywhere else, even if it is subsequently discovered in a different place!

Interestingly, the same limiting phrase forms part of the important exception to Rule 18-2b - Ball Moving after Address;

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

What is the correct ruling if a player grounds their putter immediately behind their ball on the putting green and while they are going through their mental pre-putt routine their ball moves although there is no noticeable wind, rain or other outside agency that could have influenced its movement? The Rules state that the player is deemed to have moved their ball because it is not known or virtually certain that they did not do so. It is possible, even probable, that the movement of the ball may have occurred as a result of them grounding their club, thereby moving blades of grass that might have had a domino effect in disturbing another blade of grass lying under the ball, causing it to move. Note that the wording of the exception above means that there has to be irrefutable evidence that something else caused the ball to move for the player to avoid incurring a penalty after they had addressed their ball.

I want to draw your attention to the introduction of the word “immediately” in the revised Definition of Addressing the Ball;

A player has “addressed the ball” when he has grounded his club immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball, whether or not he has taken his stance.

This is causing considerable confusion amongst Rules Officials, as there has been no official clarification on how close to the ball the clubhead has to be for it to be addressed. Having engaged in various discussions on this subject, it is now my opinion that a ball is only addressed according to the Rules if the clubhead is grounded within about an inch (~2.5cm) or less behind (or in front of) it. Personally, I used to find it very difficult to hover my club above a ball on a windy day, to avoid the one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2b incurred if it moved after I had grounded it, but I have no problem grounding any club, including my putter, at an inch or more away from my ball, thus avoiding the possibility of a Rule 18-2b penalty. However, I expect that there are others that will disagree with my opinion on this issue of when a ball is addressed under the revised definition and there can be no certainty until there is official clarification from R&A and USGA.
(Edit February 15th 2012: I have received information from an authoritative source that Rules workshops are being advised that the R&A and USGA have agreed that a ball is addressed when the club is grounded within 1/4 inch or less from the ball.)

Good golfing,

Main Changes to the Rules of Golf 1996 - 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:49:00 +0000

A regular occurrence when I resolve an argument over a ruling, with the appropriate reference to the Rules of Golf or Decisions on the Rules of Golf, is for the person that supported the incorrect interpretation to say, “They must have changed the Rule”. Of course, the Rules are amended every four years, but often the significant changes are minimal and do not materially affect the play of most golfers. However, with the most recent amendments taking effect from 1st January this year I thought that it might be timely to outline the main changes that have happened in the last five revisions to the Rules, as published jointly by the R&A and USGA.

Please note that what follows is an overview of what I consider to be the three main changes in each four-year period in a shorthand format. Readers should refer to the Rule books for more complete information.

1996

Committees may introduce a Local rule prohibiting play from an environmentally sensitive area (ESA).
Rule 6-7: Committees may lay down pace of play guidelines and in such a condition modify the penalty the penalty for a first offence, in stroke play, to one stroke.
Rule 20-4: If a player substitutes a ball when not permitted to do so they lose the hole in match play or incur a penalty of two strokes in stroke play.

2000

Definition of ‘Nearest Point of Relief’ introduced for the first time, outlining the recommended procedure for determining that point.
Rule 13-2, Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play expanded to cover the improvement of the area of the intended stance and the prohibited actions to include removing dew, frost or water.
Rule 14-2: Partner, caddie or partner’s caddie may not stand behind player during their stroke anywhere on the course (previously applied only to the putting green).

2004
30th Edition. The "most comprehensive revision of the Rules of golf for twenty years", according to the R&A, but most of the amendments resulted from a review of the linguistics employed.

Rule 11-1: A Definition of ‘Tee’ is introduced for the first time, together with a penalty of disqualification for using a non-conforming tee.
Rule 24-2b(ii): A player may take relief from an immovable obstruction in a bunker by dropping outside the bunker for a penalty of one stroke, keeping the point where the ball came to rest directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped.
Appendix ll: Introducing a maximum length of a club (other than a putter) of 48 inches (1219.2 mm) and a new maximum head size for woods of 470cc.

2008

The Definition of Advice was amended to confirm that exchange of information on distance is not considered to be advice.
Rule 12-2: Players are permitted to lift a ball in a bunker or a water hazard to identify it, with a corresponding change to Rule 15-3 removing the exemption from penalty for playing a wrong ball in a hazard.
Rule 19-2: The penalty for a player’s ball being accidentally deflected or stopped by himself, his partner, either of their caddies or their equipment was reduced to one shot in both stroke play and match play.

2012
For an overview of the most recent changes see my blog at;
http://www.barryrhodes.com/2011/10/main-amendments-to-rules-of-golf-2012.html

If you are interested in researching when a particular Rule was changed I recommend you visit, http://www.ruleshistory.com. You can find the full Rules that were in force for a particular year, or follow a Rule’s development and change over the years by selecting a topic.

Good golfing,

Many subscribers are asking me about the update to my book. I am working hard to update the 999 questions and answers with the recent amendments to the Rules and hope to have news on the availability of '999 Updated Questions on the Rules of Golf 2012 - 2015' and other related products in the next few weeks. Watch this space.

Zach Johnson Testing the Surface; Rory McIlroy Brushing the Surface

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:09:00 +0000

Two similar Rules incidents, with different outcomes, served to highlight what a player may and may not do to test and brush the surface of the grass before making a stroke.

There were a few hasty, uninformed comments about Zach Johnson incurring a penalty at the Humana Challenge last Sunday. Apparently, he was seen on camera brushing the grass on the fringe of the green from where he was preparing to chip. One person that was watching this on TV was US Solheim Cup golfer, Christina Kim, who tweeted;

Fortunately, someone must have put her right because a little while later she tweeted;

Not quite an apology to the unfortunate Zach Johnson, who obviously knows the Rules better that the ebullient Christina.

Her confusion probably arose from a misunderstanding of where a player may and may not test the surface. Most players know that they may not test the condition of a hazard (Rule 13-4a) or the surface of a putting green (Rule 16-1d), but there is nothing in the Rules to stop a player testing the surface through the green, providing that in doing so they do not improve the lie of their ball, their area of intended stance, or line of play (Rule 13-2). I have not been able to view this incident, but it is certain that Zach Johnson’s ball was on the fringe of the green and it likely that he was feeling the direction of the grain of the grass a few feet away from his ball. Apparently, his hand motions, lightly brushing the grass, were parallel to his intended line of pitch.

Today, as I was writing about the above incident, I was informed that Rory McIlroy had just incurred a penalty of two strokes for brushing sand off the fringe of the putting green of the 9th hole in Abu Dhabi. His ball was close to a bunker, a few feet away from the putting surface and he clearly bent down and brushed sand away from his intended line of putt. The Rules are clear; through the green players are permitted to brush the grass to remove grass cuttings and other loose impediments from around their ball, even on their line of play, but they are only permitted to brush away loose soil or sand that lie on the putting green. The reason for this is that the Definition of Loose Impediments states that sand and loose soils are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere. A Rules lesson learned the hard way for Rory!

I heard Sky Sports commentator, David Livingstone, speculate that the sand that Rory brushed away was probably there as a result of the bunker stroke that his other fellow competitor, Tiger Woods, had just made. I very much doubt that this was the case, because if it was Rory would have been unjustly penalised by the referee. Decision 13-2/8.5 states;

Q.A's ball is on the apron between the green and a bunker. A's partner, opponent or fellow-competitor (B) plays from the bunker and deposits sand on and around A's ball. Is A entitled to any relief?

A.Yes. A is entitled to the lie and line of play he had when his ball came to rest. Accordingly, in equity (Rule 1-4), he is entitled to remove the sand deposited by B's stroke and lift his ball and clean it, without penalty.

It’s not just professional golfers that need to brush up on their Rules, professional commentators should try to do so as well!

Good golfing,

Attending the Flagstick

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:44:00 +0000


Warren Little / Getty Images

I have noticed that when I give presentations on the Rules of Golf to Clubs one of the questions that is regularly raised is whether a player can ask for the flagstick to be attended when they are playing their ball from off the putting green. The answer is an unequivocal, Yes. Rule 17-3 states;

Before making a stroke from anywhere on the course, the player may have the flagstick attended, removed or held up to indicate the position of the hole.

Of course this does not mean that players should emulate Phil Mickelson who, in January last year, on the last hole at Torrey Pines, sent his caddie, ‘Bones’ Mackay to attend the flagstick when he was still almost 90 yards from the hole. He needed an eagle to tie the Farmers Insurance Open and nearly pulled it off with a splendid pitch that landed on the sloping green and rolled back, stopping a few feet short of the hole.

Another question regularly asked is whether the person can stand anywhere in relation to the hole when attending the flagstick. The answer is that they can. Don’t listen to those that wrongly claim that the attendant must not stand behind the hole while the putt is made. However, it is good etiquette not to stand on the player’s line of putt, or an extension of that line behind the hole, or on the putting lines of any other player in the group that has still to play. Another point of etiquette to be aware of on a sunny day is to ensure that your shadow is nowhere near the hole, or any point on the player’s line of putt.

Here is a related point that many golfers may not be aware of from Rule 8-2b;

When the player's ball is on the putting green, the player, his partner or either of their caddies may, before but not during the stroke, point out a line for putting, but in so doing the putting green must not be touched. A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting.

Decision 8-2b/2 illustrates two different circumstances where the player would be penalised. Note the subtle difference between the caddie placing his foot in order to point out the line and taking his position at the flagstick and subsequently using his foot as a guide;

Q. A player's ball lies on the putting green and his caddie attends the flagstick for him. The caddie suggests, before the stroke, that the player aim at the caddie's left foot. Is the player in breach of Rule 8-2b?

A. If the caddie had placed his foot in position for the purpose of pointing out the line for putting, the player was in breach of Rule 8-2b as soon as the caddie placed his foot in that position. The breach could not be corrected by the caddie subsequently moving his foot.

If the caddie did not initially place his foot in such a position for the purpose of pointing out the line for putting but subsequently suggested the player aim at his left foot, the player would be in breach of Rule 8-2b if the caddie did not move that foot to another position that does not indicate a line for putting prior to the stroke.

The same answer would apply if a player's partner attends the flagstick for him.

It is a good practice for the person attending the flagstick to partially remove it from its anchor at the base of the hole prior to the player making a stroke. The flagstick should be rested on the base of hole-liner with care being taken not to damage the circumference of the hole. This prevents the possibility of the the flagstick becoming 'stuck' and accidentally lifting the hole-liner as the ball approaches the hole.

Good golfing,

Addressing the Ball

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:36:00 +0000

One of the most welcome amendments to the Rules of Golf, effective 1st January 2012, is the new definition of addressing the ball. It might help if we look first at both the old and the new definitions;

Previous Definition of Addressing the Ball;

A player has “addressed the ball” when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

Current Definition of Addressing the Ball;

A player has “addressed the ball” when he has grounded his club immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball, whether or not he has taken his stance.

You will see that there are two main differences; the removal of stance as a requirement and the introduction of the word “immediately”.

With the benefit of hindsight, the removal of the stance prerequisite now seems an obvious simplification to the Rules in that most players do not ground their club for a stroke until they have completed their stance. Note that when a player’s ball lies in a hazard they are now not going to address their ball at all in the vast majority of cases, as stance is no longer a requirement and you may not ground your club in a hazard (bunker or water hazard). I say the vast majority of cases because you are permitted to ground your club on an immovable obstruction situated in a hazard (e.g. a bridge in a water hazard, Decision 13-4/30), and you are permitted to ground your club outside of a hazard if your ball lies just inside the margin of the hazard.

It is less obvious why the second change to the definition has been introduced and it has already created much discussion and disagreement between Rules experts. How far is “immediately” in the phrase “has grounded his club immediately in front of or immediately behind the ball”? Does two inches (5 centimeters) qualify, or does it mean “any closer and it would be touching the ball”, as has been suggested by authoritative sources connected with the USGA? In my opinion, the player in the photo above has not grounded their club “immediately” behind their ball and so they have not addressed their ball. This is bound to cause a lot of arguments and I am very surprised that the Ruling Bodies did not clarify the introduction of the word “immediately” with a relevant Decision.

A related change to the new Definition of Address is the revised Rule 18-2b, Ball Moving after Address;

If a player’s ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.

The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

A principle behind this Rule was that it was more than coincidence if a ball moved after the player had taken the action of addressing it. They were penalised on the assumption that either the placing of their feet or the grounding of their club was the cause of the ball moving, without any external factors being taken into account. There have been several high-profile incidents over the past four years where it was blatantly obvious that it was wind that caused a ball to move and not the player. This inequity has now been resolved. However, note that the amendment to the Rule is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card; it must be known or virtually certain that the player did not cause their ball to move.

In my opinion both of these amendments have helped to simplify and remove inconsistencies from the Rules of Golf.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

Now that I have over three years of blogs archived, the search feature at the top right of the home page can be really useful. Just enter your query in the ‘Search This Blog’ box.

Lifting a Ball in Play - Retief Goosen

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:22:00 +0000

I know that many readers find it easy to remember golf rulings when they see, or hear, about other players’ breaches, especially if they are highly-paid Tour Pros. I recently came across this YouTube video of an incident concerning Retief Goosen, on the 17th hole of his first round in the 2006 South African Open. I find the whole 4+ minutes clip interesting as it shows Retief making some very strange club decisions, as discussed by the two commentators. However, the frames relating to the subsequent Rules issue are where he marks his unplayable ball dropping area at 1:46 mins and where the dropped ball first strikes the course at 2:51 mins.

After completion of his round Retief Goosen was advised by European Tour senior referee, Andy McFee, that he had been penalised two additional strokes for re-dropping a ball that was in play after his first drop and so playing from a wrong place (Rule 20-7).

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;font face="Verdana, sans-serif"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;font size="1"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/font&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/font&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

For those receiving this blog by email click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhIYk8VpUw8

In the frame below, taken from the video, I have attempted to stop the sequence at the point where Retief’s dropped ball first hits the ground and have identified the place where he had previously marked the two permitted club-lengths with a red X, as his tee marker is not visible to us. In my opinion, having replayed this clip several times, I think that the penalty was harsh and would probably have given the player the benefit of the doubt. In fact, the two strokes penalty gave him a total of 11 strokes on this one hole, a sextuple bogey! Amazingly, he came back with a birdie on the last hole of his first round and was the eventual winner of the four-day event.

It is hard to know what Retief Goosen was thinking. It appears from his actions that that he was trying to see if his dropped ball had come to rest within the two club-length arc of where it was in the bush, rather than checking the relevant point as to whether it had first hit the course within the permitted two club-lengths. This seems to be confirmed by Andy McFee, who commented;

"He thought he had to re-drop. But you only do so if it rolls more than two club lengths from where it strikes the ground. His ball didn't do that, and it also didn't roll nearer the hole so his ball was in play. As soon as he picked it up to re-drop he incurred a one-stroke penalty. If he replaced it on the exact spot from where he lifted it, it would've stayed a one-stroke penalty. But because he didn't replace it, it became a two-stroke penalty and the nine became an 11."

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.

If you are looking for a handy reminder of the main amendments to the Rules of Golf for 2012 - 2015 please click on this link. You are welcome to print out the notice and post it on the notice board of your Club or Society.

Click here to join ‘Rhodes Rules School’ for free weekly emails on the Rules of Golf.

A New Year Rules Riddle

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:35:00 +0000

Over three years ago, just a week after I commenced writing my weekly blog, I posed this Rules teaser;

On a par 3 a player scores a hole-in-one with a ball other than the original ball that he played on that hole. How can this happen within the Rules of Golf?

Here is a link to that blog with eight different ways that it could occur.

Well, now my devious mind has come up with something similar for you Rules enthusiasts to think about over the New Year’s holiday.

After celebrating much too enthusiastically on New Year’s Eve, George arrives at the first tee for his New Year’s Day match against his arch rival, Bill. Things don’t go well for him and unbelievably (!) he is 7 holes down without having struck a ball, when he concedes the match. George has not conceded any stroke or hole and has not breached a Local Rule or Condition of Competition. Explain how this could possibly have occurred under the Rules of Golf.

I am not certainly suggesting that this scenario will ever happen but the poser is intended to encourage readers to think laterally about some breaches of the Rules that we don’t often experience. Click here for my solution to this Rules Riddle.

Happy New Year to all of you,

Golfers Will Understand (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:30:00 +0000

http://www.golflafs.com

At this same time last year I blogged on some ‘truisms’ about casual golf. Here are 20 more;

Brand new golf balls are water-magnetic and, while this cannot be measured scientifically, the more expensive the ball, the greater this water-magnetism.

If you want to hit a 7-iron as far as a scratch golfer, simply try to lay up with one just short of a water hazard.

When your next shot has to carry over a water hazard, you can either hit one more club or two more balls.

If your driver is hot, your putter is ice cold; if you can hit your irons, you will top your woods; if you keep your right elbow tucked in, your head will come up.

The inevitable result of any golf lesson is the instant elimination of the one critical unconscious motion that allowed you to compensate for all of your many other errors.

It's not a 'gimme' if you're still away.

There are two kinds of bounces; unfair bounces and bounces just the way you meant to play it.

Don't buy a putter until you've had a chance to throw it.

When you look up, causing an awful shot, you will always look down again at exactly the moment when you ought to start watching the ball if you ever want to see it again.

Never try to keep more than 10 separate thoughts in your mind during your swing.

You can put a draw on the ball, you can put a fade on the ball, but no casual golfer can put a straight on the ball.

A ball you can see in the rough from 50 yards away is not yours.

A good golf partner is one who's always slightly worse than you are. If you get a lot of invites to play, now you know why.

If there's a storm rolling in, you'll be having the game of your life.

If you're afraid a full shot might reach the green while the foursome ahead of you is still putting out, you have two options: you can immediately shank a lay-up or you can wait until the green is clear and top a ball halfway there.

Golf balls from the same sleeve tend to follow one another, particularly out of bounds or into water.

It’s far easier to get up at 6.00am to play golf than at 10.00am to mow the grass.

The frequency with which balls are lost increases as the available supply decreases.

The secret of good golf is: use your real swing to take the big divot, use your practice swing to make the shot, and always hit your ‘do-over’ first.

Your best round of golf will be immediately followed by your worst round. The probability of the latter increases with the number of people you tell about the former.

Wishing all my readers a Very Merry Christmas, I appreciate your loyalty.

If you find my blog interesting then it is likely that you know someone else who might also benefit. You can recommend that they subscribe at the top right corner of my home page, or, you can send me their email address at rules at barryrhodes dot com. As you know, there is no charge, they can unsubscribe at any time and I will not share their email address with anyone else.

You can also subscribe yourself or your friends to my very popular, free ‘Rhodes Rules School’ series of emails at this link; http://forms.aweber.com/form/80/425590380.htm

A Rules Related True Story

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:59:00 +0000

The relevance of this plaque will become obvious when you read on.

I received this email today from Peter Blaisdell, a respected, long-term, US tournament Rules Official. It led me to a story that is particularly appropriate for this time of year and I am sure that it will provide you with food for thought

“I'd like to share something with you, my friends.
I received a phone call last night from someone I don't really know.
I have posted the contents of the conversation on the Golf Club Atlas website under the heading-----I got a phone call--
If interested, take a look, it speaks volumes about golf and the human condition.
Really shook me up.
Pete”

Here is Pete's entry on Golf Club Atlas forum (dated today, 14th December, 2011);

I got a phone call last night from a woman who identified herself and asked if I was the Mr. Blaisdell who is a rules official. I said yes and she said that her husband wanted to speak to me but I should be aware that he was heavily medicated. I thought, --What the hell is this?--A man came on the phone and said—Pete, you probably don't remember me but I used to play in a number of USGA qualifiers back in the 90's. The name did ring a bell but I really could not place him. He said that there was a ruling at a Public links qualifier at Gardner municipal where there was a difference of opinion on a situation where two players had a heated discussion concerning a ball moved after address on the putting green. The man on the phone was the player involved and his fellow competitor was adamant that the ball had moved. I was not the first official but was brought in as a second opinion because the first official was not sure how to rule on this. It came down to a simple he said-he said and I ruled for the player accused.

The man on the phone said --I have pancreatic cancer, I've been in the hospital for 7 weeks, nothing can be done, I came home to die. I want you to know that the ball did move and I cheated. I have carried this with me for years and I wanted to get it off my chest. It is the reason I stopped playing golf because I was so ashamed of myself. It is the only time in my life I cheated and I want to tell you I'm sorry that I lied to you and the other player.

I told the gentleman that I accept the apology and that it took guts to call. I said I would pray for him.--This really shook me up. I wanted to share this.

If you have read this with interest you will probably want to read the many varied comments that have since been posted on the web site. This is the link.

Good golfing,

Edit: I am sorry to have to report that this honourable gentleman passed away in January 2012. RIP.

Winter Rules / Preferred Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:35:00 +0000

Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

There is much confusion over the subject of ‘Winter Rules’, or ‘Preferred Lies’, or as some critical golfers call it, ‘Lift, Clean and Cheat’. I think that the main reason for this is sloppiness by club or course Committees in properly wording the Local Rules that are required, and then failing to display the appropriate notice where it will be seen and taken note of by members. There must be very few courses that do not suffer from adverse conditions at certain times of the year, thereby justifying the introduction of temporary Local Rules, either to protect the course or to promote fair and pleasant play.

Committees should anticipate these occasions and have properly worded Local Rules prepared that spell out exactly what is, and what is not permitted. It is definitely not good enough to post a notice that says ‘Winter Rules’ of ‘Lift, clean and place everywhere’. Where possible, it is recommended to reproduce the specimen Local Rules that are provided in Appendix l, Part B, section 4 of the Rules book, amended as required. Amongst the subjects that should be considered are;
•    Whether lift, clean and drop is to be restricted to fairway areas, or is to include the rough (through the green).
•    Whether the ball must be marked before it is lifted (strongly recommended).
•    How far the player is allowed to place their ball from where they picked it up (e.g. the width of a score card, 6 inches, one club-length).
•    Whether there is relief for a ball embedded through the green (not just on closely mown areas).
•    The procedure to be followed if a player’s ball comes to rest on a temporary putting green.
•    If mats are in use on a teeing ground, whether the player must play from the mat, even if they are able to tee their ball within two club-lengths behind the tee markers without it being on the mat.
•    Confirming that the ball may only be placed once before it is in play.
•    Identifying general areas of ground under repair, such as cut turf seams, sand slits areas of drainage disruption and damage caused by heavy equipment.
•    Identifying dropping zones and when they may be used.

As I write this piece I am reminded of a situation I experienced some years ago when a fellow competitor, whose ball had embedded in the bank of a ditch inside the margin of a water hazard, started to prise it out. When I advised him that there was no relief for a ball embedded in a water hazard he abruptly replied that the notice in the pro-shop said, “Placing everywhere”!

Good golfing,

Have you discovered 'Rhodes Rules School' yet? Every week I get several emails from golfers and golf clubs, telling me how useful they find my weekly email series of questions, answers, references and explanations, based around photos and diagrams of everyday Rules situations that occur on the course. It’s free, you can unsubscribe at any time and your email address will not be shared. Click here to subscribe.

Two Golf Books for Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Barry Rhodes) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:37:00 +0000

This is a first for me, because in over three years of blogging on the Rules I have resisted the temptation to recommend any golf books, other than my own of course! However, I am going to break this practice by recommending two very different books.

My first recommendation is partly for selfish reasons. I am now receiving more questions on the Rules than I can cope with. The large majority of these can easily be answered by referencing the 'Decisions on the Rules of Golf' book. The most recent edition contains 17 new Decisions, 22 revised Decisions, 3 re-numbered Decisions, 98 revised Decisions and 35 withdrawn Decisions. I strongly recommend that anyone with an interest in the Rules of Golf should purchase a copy of this book, produced jointly by the R&A and the USGA. It is much easier and far more interesting to read than the difficult Rules of Golf book and will provide you with plentiful material for those après-golf exchanges in the Clubhouse or the bar.

Amazon.com (US $ customers)
Amazon.co.uk (St £ customers)
I have provided links to both the USGA and R & A editions, but can assure you that the content is the same. The only real difference is the US English and UK English spellings.

And now for something that is completely different! When he sent me a copy of his recently published book, Jason Ross, an American author and golfer, told me that there is no other adventure book about golf written for young people. I read the 'The Magic Driver' this week and can honestly say that I cannot wait for Christmas, so that I can read this to my grandsons, aged 8 and 7. The story is about two youngsters, Justice, who is 12, and Gigi his younger sister, who live the simple life as two young golfers on the junior circuit, until they are given a magic driver that whisks them away to Thailand, where their real adventure begins. If you have children, grandchildren, nephews or nieces that have any interest in golf, I am pretty certain that they will enjoy this first book of what he hopes will be an adventure series, from Jason Ross.

Amazon.com (US $ customers)

Amazon.co.uk (St £ customers)

If you are interested in either of these recommended books please click on the links above for more information. If you do purchase from this link I get 4% of the price to help defray some of my expenses. If you are receiving this blog by email click here to go to the links.

Thank you and good reading,