+- Discussion (http://simplegolfrules.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discussion (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: What's the ruling? (/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays (/showthread.php?tid=821)
Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays - ColonelMac - 08-28-2013 03:22 PM
In watching the telecast on Sunday, the need to simplify the rules was again highlighted.
Kuchar's ball was just off the putting surface, but he elected to putt as he was within 15 feet of the hole. There was some sort of damage on his intended line. According to David Feherty, the damage was made by someone's putter. Initially. Slugger White judged it to be "normal" damage, in the same way as spike marks are judged, and NOT repairable.
Upon being pressed by Kuchar, White then radioed the Committee. It was then apparently ruled to be "abnormal" damage that could, in fact, be repaired. White made the repair and the match resumed.
Having served in the military for almost 30 years, I participated in more "rules and regulation" making sessions than I care to count. The entire purpose of rules is to provide clear guidance and to eliminate, as much as possible, subjectivity. But, those rules also must be grounded in logical rationale and serve a useful purpose.
If the course is to be played as you find it, then either ALL damage should be repairable or NO damage should be. I made this same point in another thread a week ago to which there's been no response.
http://simplegolfrules.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=58
Either that's because everyone agrees with the current contradictions in the rule and believe it's not worthy of reply. Is there still anyone around who participated in the 1952 rule change that finally got rid of Stymies? When were ball marks judged to be "good" damage and, therefore, repairable? Why? And, why when THAT was decided was it also decided that such things as spike marks are "bad" damage and NOT repairable. What useful purpose did/does that serve?
At this point, I doubt anyone really knows.
RE: Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays - aaa - 08-28-2013 03:38 PM
See
http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=61
RE: Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays - ColonelMac - 08-28-2013 04:21 PM
(08-28-2013 03:38 PM)aaa Wrote: See
http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=61
The USGA position on spike marks is, in itself, contradictory. How does tamping down a spike mark contribute to slow play, but taking the time to brush sand and dirt or pick leaves and other loose impediments off the intended line NOT contribute to slow play?
IT still begs the question, if a player does not follow proper etiquette and tamp down spike marks after completion of the hole, why should a player in a following group bear the risk of losing the hole due to the previous player's negligence or carelessness?
Leaving aside the absurdity of the slow play argument, exactly what useful purpose is being served?
RE: Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays - aaa - 08-29-2013 06:11 AM
On a green mown to 3.25 - 5.00 mm, how does a spike mark affect a rolling ball?
RE: Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays - Simonko - 08-29-2013 07:14 AM
Exactly!
No balls blown off greens either.