Response to Ask Linda #1829

Dear readers,

The e-mail below was in response to Ask Linda #1829-Player creates divot to serve as a tee, posted on October 23. 

Hi Linda,

The purpose of this email is to thank you for reminding me of my late father – a fine scratch golfer who passed on all his enthusiasm for the game to his son, but sadly not all of his talent. Reading this question, I could see him on the tee of a par 3, knocking up a wedge of turf to perch his ball on. Happy memories! Those were the days when on a Scottish links course there was a box containing wet sand on the tee. Many a time as a kid I’ve teed a ball up on a little heap of sand.

So, thanks for the memories!

Best wishes,

Lou from Scotland

New Rules for 2019

Dear readers,

The publication of the new Rules of Golf for 2019 has encouraged some of you to ask me what I think of them. Please understand that the purpose of my blog is to explain the Rules, not comment on them. If I were to embark on opinion pieces I would have no time to live my life! Therefore, I will not answer any questions seeking opinions about 2019. I will leave it to you and your friends to debate the merits of the new Rules.

I am also receiving responses to my columns pointing out that the Rule regarding whatever question I answered will change next year. I am well aware that many Rules will be turned on their heads in 2019. However, I firmly believe that overloading answers to rules’ questions in 2018 with the changes for 2019 will only serve to confuse everyone. I plan to answer all questions in 2018 with only the Rules that pertain to this year. I will endeavor to explain the new Rules for 2019 next year, when they are in effect.

Linda

Ask Linda #1566a-Follow-up to #1566

Dear readers,

Several of you offered useful suggestions related to #1566 to help speed up the pace of play.

from Lulu in Hercules, California:

Our club agrees that if a group gets behind, the first two to putt out go ahead to tee off at the next hole. They wait for the other two players to tee off and complete the hole together. They do not split up for the remainder of the round; they just speed up play a little until they catch up with the group ahead. It works!

from Lulu in Australia:

We often do this, but we don't split the group. We only send two who have finished putting to tee off and they wait on the next tee for the remainder of the group to arrive and tee off, before continuing as a group. We strongly suggest that they tee off before marking cards! There is never any question of poor sportsmanship. It’s encouraged as “ready golf.”

from Lou in California:

In a related instance we encourage our junior players to go and tee off after they have putted out (especially if they are behind their Pace-of-Play requirements) to go to the next tee and tee off. I was questioned on this practice because there was no marker present. I checked with a USGA official, and received the following response: “While the player and his marker have an explicit responsibility for the correctness of the player’s scorecard, there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that requires a marker to witness every stroke a player makes. After each hole the marker should check the score with the competitor and record it – see Rule 6-6a.”

Responses to “A note to readers”

Dear readers,

Thank you for the many encouraging responses to my request that readers try to reduce the number of questions. Several of you have recently included apologies for adding to my workload when you sent questions. Please don’t. If you have done research, and cannot find the answer you need, I’m still here to help.

Several of you suggested I remind readers of another source to find answers to questions about the Rules – my blog! I suppose I should have thought of that…

There is a search engine on the blog (http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com). If you type a few key words in the Search box (located on the right under my photo) and click “Go,” you will find numerous columns that may both answer your question and expand your knowledge of the particular topic.

I am reprinting below one reader’s response that was particularly gratifying and may help you understand how to do a search.

Hi Linda,

Just to say, first of all, a massive thank you. What you do is unique and quite extraordinary. It goes way beyond just being about golf, I feel. There is this strange sense of community through your messages. Golf is a huge part of many people’s lives. It’s a very long game and it’s a very long time to potentially be upset within oneself, emotionally disturbed by some altercation or disagreement with fellow players around rules issues. It thus often leads to heated debates and easily to further upset. Believe me, I’ve witnessed this at first hand. For me personally, as a newcomer to the game, the resource of ‘Linda’ has been a Godsend on several occasions. There is also something really nice about hearing descriptions about other clubs and golfing environments around the world. 

It doesn’t surprise me at all that you’ve become overwhelmed. You provide a free service and it’s easy to end up being taken advantage of. I’m sure I’m as guilty as others in this respect. So, I’m glad to see you addressing this as you have done and I know it’s woken me up to the sort of demands on you. I do want you to know though how much I appreciate your daily missives dropping into my in-box.

There is one more suggestion, though, I might add to your list. People should certainly search your blog properly using key words. Most questions, especially the more common ones, you have probably answered in many different ways on many different occasions. The advantage of searching your blog is that one not only educates oneself about the current question but one also often learns much more as there are answers to related questions and issues. 

For example, just now I typed into the search box: “Abnormal conditions on the green” and my search revealed the following:

http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=+abnormal+conditions+on+the+green

This resulted in 6 posts and there are so many questions about the green that almost everything is covered in your answers. In fact, the very first time I used your blog this is what I did and I found the answer to my question.

Lou from North Wales

A note to my readers

Dear readers,

I have received an unusually high number of questions lately. So many, in fact, that I have answers lined up to post five days a week from now through the end of next August!

Please keep in mind that I am committed to answering every question I receive. I am a one-woman operation, and I’m starting to get overwhelmed. I would ask the following considerations from you:

1. Please limit your questions to a maximum of one per month.

2. Please write to me as a last resort, not a first. Before you send me a question:

a. Check the Rulebook and the Decisions book to try to find the answer.                                            

b. Call the USGA (the R&A outside the United States) and ask to speak to a rules’ official. The phone number of the USGA is: (908) 234-2300.

c. Talk to your pro. Be sure to ask for a specific rule reference when you receive an answer; verify the information yourself in the Rulebook.

Thank you for your understanding,

Linda

Revised Decisions

87 changes have been made to the 2012-2013 Decisions book. There are three new Decisions, 59 revised Decisions, one re-numbered Decision, and 24 withdrawn Decisions. These changes will go into effect on January 1, 2014.

This puts me in a bit of a quandary. Since I usually receive more questions each week than I can post (I post four per week), I have columns scheduled to post through October of 2014. A few of the answers that will post after January 1 may need to be edited, due to the changes in the Decisions.

Rather than review these future columns looking for possible changes, I am asking those of you who make it a practice to study the Decisions to inform me of Ask Linda columns that may turn out to be at odds with the revisions.

Thanks,

Linda

P.S. In the meantime, if you would like a preview of the changes that will go into effect on January 1, click on this link:

(http://www.usga.org/uploadedFiles/USGAHome/rules/Amendments_2012-2013_Decisions_on_the_Rules_of_Golf.pdf)

Much ado about Tiger

Dear readers,

As you may have surmised, my mailbox is beginning to fill up with questions and comments about the two-stroke penalty Tiger Woods received on the 15^th hole at Augusta National during the third round of the Masters.

The most accurate and detailed account I have read thus far was written by Barry Rhodes. I would highly recommend that anyone who wishes to fully understand the situation read his account. Here is the link:

http://www.barryrhodes.com/2013/04/tiger-woods-penalty-at-masters-is-golf.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RulesOfGolf+%28Rules+of+Golf%29

Briefly, I believe that Tiger should have been disqualified. He chose the stroke and distance relief option for a ball in a water hazard [Rule 26-1a]. This option requires that a player play a ball “as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played.”

By his own admission in a post-round interview, he returned to the original spot and deliberately dropped a ball two yards further back. The penalty for doing so is two strokes. Since he did not include the penalty in his score for the round, he signed a card with a score that was lower than what he actually had. The penalty for this is disqualification. Period.

Rule 33-7 allows a Committee to waive a penalty of disqualification in exceptional cases, and Decision 33-7/4.5 gives examples of when a Committee might choose to do so. The Decision states quite clearly that “a Committee would not be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty…if the competitor’s failure to include the penalty stroke(s) was a result of either ignorance of the Rules or of facts that the competitor could have reasonably discovered prior to signing and returning his scorecard.” In other words, (1) ignorance of the Rules is not a legitimate reason to waive a disqualification penalty; and (2) disqualification may not be waived when the player has knowledge of what transpired. There was no justification for waiving disqualification: Tiger’s ignorance is irrelevant, and nothing happened that could only be detected by a review of slow-motion video. Tiger was well aware that he did not drop as near as possible to where he hit his previous shot.

The bottom line is that Tiger intentionally dropped in a place where a drop was not permitted, did not include the two-stroke penalty in his score, and should have been disqualified. I believe that a proper disqualification would have garnered respect for the Rules and for this particular Committee; failure to rule correctly has many people thinking that Tiger has a separate set of rules that apply to him alone.

I am going to answer one e-mail on the topic, from a reader who is interested in learning the correct procedure under the Rules, which should be our main concern on this blog:

Dear Linda,

Forget that Tiger just did it… I want to know what to do IF I do it…

Situation: From the fairway, ball is struck and flies and hits pin in the hole on the green and then ricochets back into a water hazard.

Question: Where do I legally place and play my replacement ball?

I thought you could walk from the hazard as far as you wanted, keeping the hole and the point of entry in the hazard in line…drop and count 1 stroke penalty. Tiger somehow was required to replay the shot from the point it was originally played?????  He wouldn’t want to put it in his divot, so he would drop a little way from the exact spot anyway.  ??????  This is totally confusing.  Could he not come up to the hazard and drop two club-lengths from the hazard at a point nearest where the ball crossed the hazard?

I’ve heard lots of commentary, but none re-iterating the appropriate rule which I could understand.

Thank you.

Lou

Dear Lou,

The first thing you need to understand is that the hazard on the 15^th hole at Augusta is a water hazard (yellow lines, in this case), not a lateral water hazard. As such, there is no option to drop within two club-lengths of where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. This option is only available for lateral hazards.

Tiger (and you, had it happened to you) had three relief options:

1. Drop a ball where he hit his previous shot. This is known as “stroke and distance,” and is the option Tiger chose.

2. Drop a ball behind the hazard on the line of sight* to the hole. Since Tiger’s ricochet last crossed the margin of the hazard left of the flagstick, this option was not a good choice. I believe there is inhospitable terrain on the left side of Hole #15. (*Line of sight means that you imagine a line that begins at the hole, passes through the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, and continues back to infinity. This is the “line” on which you may drop a ball as far back as you wish.)

3. Drop a ball in a designated Dropping Zone (not always available, but it was an option on the 15th hole at Augusta). Tiger did not choose this option because he didn’t like the wet conditions in the drop area.

When you choose the “stroke and distance” option, you must drop the ball as nearly as possible on the spot where you hit your previous shot. You may not drop it on a “better” spot two yards back. The Rules are very clear on this point, and I cannot begin to understand how Tiger (and his caddie, apparently) “forgot” this requirement. Neither do I understand why Tiger did not summon a Rules official before proceeding, given the very unusual set of circumstances that preceded his drop.

Please keep in mind, with regard to your own play, that you should not sign your scorecard if you are uncertain whether your procedure on a given hole was correct. Let the Committee hash it out and give you a ruling first.

Linda

Copyright © 2013 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.

In Defense of 3/4 Handicap Allowance

Dear readers,
I received this delightful response to the reader's question in Ask Linda #291. While it is not a question, per se, I found it an interesting read. I hope you will enjoy it.


Linda,
Having thoroughly enjoyed over 20 years of the best form of golf (4-ball) I would say that the 3/4 handicap rule is a great deal fairer than full h/caps. This is because the higher h/cap player is almost always less consistent. This reults in her/him on average losing individual holes by more shots than when she/he wins a hole.

Of more significance is the high/low versus mid/mid situation where I feel the matchplay handicap rules (still) favour the former combination.

Playing off ~12, I found out by accident* over the long term that I was better off with a an erratic high handicapper (off say 25 and receiving 10 strokes) when playing against a couple of say, 14-18 handicappers. All I had to do was play steadily, holding off the opposition, and wait for my partner (who might be playing as if with brooms and shovels) to nip in with 2 or 3 blinder/bandit holes - which were frequently pivotal in match-score AND psychological terms. Even when I failed in my role, leaving us say 2 or 3 down at the turn, a (possible flukey) nett birdie by my partner and a belated birdie by me would have our opponents in terminal disarray.

* I never felt guilty about this advantage I felt I had when playing with a high handicapper because this situation invariably arose from the mid-handicappers despicably avoiding the hapless rabbit (a la playground games)!

Obviously your high-handicap partner will benefit from a light touch of positivity and distracting banter - together with the odd nip of malt &/or liqueur (a small price to pay!)

Using this format I was happily successful in club, winter league and works' competitions, accumulating a number of prized scalps and a priceless collection of sometimes epic memories.

On one occasion I was obliged to play for recklessly substantial (and arguably illegal) stakes on the oppositions' long and testing home course. With us an all-too-predictable 3 down at the 8th, the enemy carelessly allowed my partner to scramble a nett par win at the long par 4 9th. I then managed (frankly epic!) back-to-back birdies at consecutive par 5s. Surfing the wave we pressed our psychological advantage. At the wicked par 4 14th I conjured my best ever 6-iron over trees and water to claim the advantage. Following a ginger downhill chip on the following hole and a nervy half at the tricky par 3 16th it only remained for our shell-shocked opponents to miss a short putt at the 17th for us be able to casually bounce the now meaningless 18th, in anticipation of the various delights of the 19th and the amusingly grudging handover of the stash.

For what it's worth I would offer the following comments to a double figure handicap golfer:

No.1 priority always is psychology.

N0.2 your short game - chip* til your hands blister (once mastered this skill never leaves you - and whatever they say about the 'dustbin lid' you should be confidently aiming to hole out - and, hey presto...! Have the pin out if you can 'see' the shot - because relying on the pin to stop your chip is an extraordinarily common but ludicrous and negative strategy - and when you regularly get close even your opponents will start to believe you can hole out) and practise putting outside your comfort zone (always treating bad sessions with indifference). Chip and putt to beyond the hole. Where allowed 'finish off' putts that go by whist the line is fresh in your mind but mark and wait if you insist on coming up short!

No.3 'course management' - play short/long/wide of difficult greens and obstacles as appropriate - shut out the Hooray-Henry Master-Blasters - you will tend to out score (and annoy) your over-ambitious opponents

N0.4 - shorten your backswing and take the heave out of your downswing - both fatally unbalance the mortal.

*practise short lobs but with a locked out dominant arm as in putting and save them for when they're NECESSARY.

Limit on strokes per hole

Linda, I know the USGA rules don't deal with a limit on strokes per hole, but a number of leagues I am in do.  Either by league rules or course rules they have a limit to speed up play.

I wonder if you could address the equitable way to deal with this.

In a league where 2 points are given for the low net player, it doesn't seem fair that a player who had to pick up could still end up winning or tying for the 2 points. (Match play is easier, you just lose the hole).

 

This happened to me in a playoff for the league championship, when I had to take a maximum and pick up on one hole. I won by one stroke for low net, but I didn't think I should have. But our rules didn't make any exception for winning even though I surely would have had more strokes. I think that picking up should have disqualified me from winning any points. We do mark a 10X on our card to distinguish a 10 max from a regular 10.

Do you have any advice on how to deal with this issue that I am sure comes up in many other leagues?

Also, when leagues limit strokes, do you think it is better to have a maximum per hole, or have a rule that you pick up after so many strokes and place your ball on the green and putt out. (The problem with the latter we have found is it doesn't speed up play and it can cause arguments about where the ball should be placed on the green).

Now that we will all be starting our leagues soon, I hope you can give us your thoughts on this.

Lulu

P.S. Love your emails, I always try to answer the question before I read your answer, and I must be learning as I am getting pretty good at coming up with the right answer.  Thanks!!

Dear Lulu,

This is not my area of expertise. However, I can see that you’re interested in my opinion, so I will try my best to offer you some useful suggestions.

Limiting strokes is a fine idea for leagues where the players have high handicaps. It helps with pace of play, as you mentioned, and that makes the round more enjoyable for everyone. No one should have to stand around and wait while another player hits 10 shots on a par 3. My recommendation would be to limit the strokes per hole to a maximum of double par (6 on a par 3, 8 on a par 4, and 10 on a par 5). When a player reaches the maximum and has not completed the hole, she should pick up and not hit again until she tees off on the next hole. I see no reason to allow this player to pick up and then place a ball on the green to putt. If she wants to practice putting, the place for that is the practice putting green.

Players will need to learn that the score they make during league play is not necessarily the same score they will post in their handicap record. They should keep a separate record for posting purposes on which they record their most likely score for any hole where they are required to pick up. Their most likely score must not be higher than their ESC score (“ESC” is the abbreviation for “Equitable Stroke Control”). You might better understand this if I offer an example.

Let’s look at Daisy, whose Course Handicap is 36. After 8 shots on a par 4 (double par), she is still 30 yards from the green. For league play, she will pick up and record an X-8. However, the number she will officially post for that hole is not 8. Remember, she did not finish the hole. First she must estimate her most likely score for that hole. That would add up to 11, assuming one chip and two putts. However, 11 is higher than her allowable ESC score. A player whose Course Handicap is 36 may not post higher than a 9 for any hole. When Daisy totals her score for posting purposes, she will count 9 on that hole.

I understand your discomfort at winning when you actually scored higher than another player but your league score was lower because you were required to pick up and record a set maximum score. I am going to try to make you feel better about that. There is a precedent for such scoring in golf. In a Stableford competition, each time your score on a hole is more than one over the fixed score, your score for the hole is 0. If the fixed score is par, then it doesn’t matter whether you score a double bogey or a quadruple bogey–your score is still 0. And if I may use an example from recreational baseball and softball, there are leagues where boys and girls have a limit on the number of runs they are permitted to score in an inning. If a team reaches that limit with bases loaded and no outs, those players have to come off the bases and take the field. It’s possible for them to lose that game because of this rule. You and your fellow competitors all know that the rules of your league require that you pick up after a certain maximum number of strokes. If you are all observing the same rules, then the competition, theoretically, is fair.

That being said, I will offer a suggestion for your league championship that might help guarantee that the player with the actual lowest net score is the winner. When you reach the maximum, instead of writing that maximum number with an X (you mentioned that you record X-10), record your most likely score with an X (X-13, for example). To avoid arguments, you might establish “official” most likely scores related to the distance remaining to get to the green. For example, you might decide that for all balls within 100 yards of the green, add 3 strokes; from 101 to 150 yards, add 4 strokes; over 150 yards, add 5 strokes.

I hope my suggestions will prove useful. Even if you don’t adopt them, they might help you formulate fair rules so that everyone in your league will be able to enjoy the competition.

Linda  

Copyright © 2011 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.

Vacation notice

Dear readers,

I will be out of the country during the month of November. Please continue to send your questions, but be aware that I will not be able to send you an answer until December.

Don’t be confused by the fact that you will continue receiving my columns during November. While I send personal answers to readers as soon as possible after receiving them, I don’t post those answers immediately. I prefer to post no more than two answers per week on the blog.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Linda

Making Competitions Fair

I recently played in a four-person scramble tournament that brought home the advisability of providing senior tees for older gentlemen.

My team was comprised of two men around 60, one over 80, and one female. The handicaps ranged from 9 to 14.

All of the men were assigned to the middle tees; women played the forward tees. When the forward tees were near the middle tees, my drive, understandably, was never useful. However, on those holes where the forward tees were placed well ahead of the middle tees, I had the chance to contribute. This gave me something to look forward to, and helped me feel I was valuable to my team for something besides chipping and putting.

The older gentleman, on the other hand, was frustrated in his attempts to contribute off the tee. Despite having a very good driving day (most of his drives were well-struck and finished in the fairway), he was never able to outdrive the younger men. While he claimed that he had a good day because he was pleased that he hit the ball well, I’m fairly certain it was discouraging that all of those good shots were useless in the competition.

The point I am trying to make is that tournaments should be designed to bring all the participants into the competition. In mixed gender tournaments, there should always be a number of holes where the difference in distance allows the women to contribute. And in tournaments where you have men of advanced years, senior tees should be used and should be located far enough in front of the men’s tees to allow the seniors to have a fair chance to compete.

Be careful not to err in the other direction. If you have any holes on your course, for example, where the senior tees are so far ahead as to change a par 5 into a par 4, or to turn a difficult par 4 into a piece of cake, then you may want to put all the men on the same tee box, moving the seniors to the front and the younger men to the back.

If you take the time to set up your course fairly for all ages and both genders, your tournament will be more fair, more fun, and more successful.

Linda

Copyright © 2009 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.

Minding other players’ business

Linda,

In my mind, this [practice of posting other people’s scores (see Ask Linda #147-Posting incomplete rounds)] is quintessentially what is wrong with the game of golf, and women's golf, especially. (Could you imagine a guy posting his buddy's score or worse yet, giving him a 12 on every hole not played?!!) This playing partner, presumably a friend, was having a bad day… so what? This new Gestapo-esque mandate of turning in one's card assumes that all golfers are cheaters. What happened to the assumption that people are basically honest and that golf is a game of honor? They must have been playing for a LOT of money (!!..btw also against the rules but it goes on anyway.). It offends me that the game has been tainted in this manner and I think that it impedes any novice golfer who may want to pursue this great sport.

The next opportunity you get, I would like to see you address this issue. It's a game for Pete's sake…get over yourself!! I'm not saying that the rules of the game should go unheeded, but a little less minding of other people's business and a little more live and let live would make for more fun! We don't need more Rules Queens!

Thanks for letting me vent!

Lulu

Dear Lulu,

Before I write a response, I want to be certain I understand what issue you would like me to address. Am I correct in thinking that you disapprove of other people posting scores for you? If this is not the issue, please clarify.

Linda

Dear Linda,

That is only part of the issue, but you are correct, I do not agree with that policy. I think that there is a general mean-spiritedness that pervades the game and I am sorry to say it but I think that women are worse offenders than men. It is a "me up you down" attitude that is NOT under the aegis of "friendly competition". The letter you received was emblematic of that attitude. That writer did not think that her playing partner was really ill and wanted to be sure that her score got posted. Was that really her business? You may not agree with me and if so, I am fine with that, but I just thought that since people read your postings that this would be something to address. I do not recommend that the rules be flaunted but I do think that a live and let live approach is preferable and that people should be given the benefit of the doubt and that there should be less emphasis on what other players are doing, in general. This does not apply to scheduled events such as match play, etc, but in an informal game, I think that players should mind their own business.

I hope that I have clarified my position.

Thanks.

Lulu

Dear Lulu,

I'm hoping you're not suggesting that I recommend that players not post all their scores, since that would be a violation of the rules.

The reader who sent me this question is a member of a 9-holers group. These are high handicap players who play together once a week, and one person collects the cards and is responsible to post the scores. She simply did not understand what to do about posting a score for a player who did not complete her round. I hope she now understands that she cannot post that round since the player did not play at least seven holes, and that she also understands how to calculate scores for the holes not played.

We all have good and bad days on the golf course. I have, on very rare occasions (I can recall only two), left a golf course because I was playing too poorly to enjoy my round. However, I still posted 9-hole scores, since I had played at least seven holes. I know that the system will throw those scores out anyway, so I follow the rules of posting and don't worry about those high scores.

Posting scores is not a punishment. It is just a helpful tool to keep track of your progress, and provides an honest and unbiased method of fairly competing with other players whose skill level is not the same as yours. Players who don't post scores because they are either too high or too low are cheating the system and do not have a correct handicap. Some of them end up with a vanity handicap (artificially low) that allows them to gain entry into tournaments where they do not belong, and others end up winning handicap tournaments because their handicap is artificially high (cheaters who are affectionately called "sandbaggers"). I have little sympathy or respect for either of these types of cheaters. All players should post all scores from every acceptable round. This is the type of honesty that the USGA expects; this honesty will yield a handicap for each player that reflects his true scoring potential.

There is no rule that prohibits other players from posting a score for you, provided they have your permission to do so. The reader who sent in the question in #147 was responsible to post the scores of all the players competing that day, and had their permission. Clubs or organizations that require that you turn in your cards so that they can post your rounds are motivated by a desire to keep everyone’s handicap accurate. They are aware that some players are reluctant to post high or low scores, and they are choosing to override that reluctance in an effort to allow the handicap system to work as it was intended. If everyone would post all acceptable scores, and remember to apply Equitable Score Control (ESC) to those scores, then net tournaments everywhere would be noticeably more fair and consequently more enjoyable.

I don’t have a solution to how to get every player to post every acceptable score. Groups that post tournament scores or league scores for all participants are helping to remedy the problem, as are golf clubs that require that you submit your card after every round. I do not condone posting a player’s score secretly, but I would recommend that you encourage your friends to post every score from a round that meets the USGA requirements for posting [see Ask Linda #142-To post or not to post]. The USGA handicap system will only produce accurate handicaps if players are responsible. Unfortunately, no one has yet figured out how to legislate or enforce honesty.

Now let’s take a brief look at the issue of gambling. The USGA does not prohibit informal betting among friends. Below is a quote from the USGA policy on gambling that explains what type of betting is permissible:

"The USGA does not object to informal wagering among individual golfers or teams of golfers when the players in general know each other, participation in the wagering is optional and is limited to the players, the sole source of all money won by the players is advanced by the players on themselves or their own teams and the amount of money involved is such that the primary purpose is the playing of the game for enjoyment."

In layman’s terms, reasonable bets among friends when you are betting on yourself to win are fine.

If you would like to read the entire gambling policy, here is the link:

http://www.usga.org/rules/amateur_status/gambling/Etiquette-on-Gambling/

Linda

Copyright © 2009 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.