Tom, A couple of disagreements with your interpretation... ----- Original Message ----- From: tflan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:45 PM
> Further, if he were to claim a lost ball, > he would have had to hit another ball from > the approximate place where the first ball > was presumed lost. Nothing in the Rules allows this. Rule 27.1 says you go back to where the original ball (in this case, the tee shot) was played. The golf leagues around here play under "local rules" that run the very sensible way you described it. But !!! this brings me to... > During another round with the same 2 guys, > the guy with the lost ball was called for > tamping down spike marks. The Rules Maven > informed me that Local Rules always take > precedence over the Rules of Golf! I directed > him to the Rules section that discusses this > very subject. The guy still wants to argue > the point. I assume you mean 33.8-b "A penalty imposed by a Rule of Golf shall not be waived by a Local Rule." And indeed the Decisions identify some "local rules" that are prohibited. (BTW, they include several that are in effect in the leagues and observed by all, the USGA notwithstanding. And that includes the rule of playing the ball from where it was presumably lost.) But I don't think a local rule that says "you may tamp down spike marks" violates 33.8-b. It doesn't waive the penalty so much as changing the rule so that there is no penalty. If you think this is nitpicking, I submit that the notion of a "ball drop zone" -- which is in the USGA's model local rules -- does the same thing. Personal opinion: It is important for the club's rules committee to understand what is and is not a LEGAL local rule. If they do their job right, then the golfers don't have to worry about whether some particular local rule is legal. If I were faced on the golf course with a clearly-stated but probably prohibited local rule, I don't know what the best course of action would be. Following the local rule is certainly not a crazy or evil thing in such a case. (This, of course, assumes that your club ACTUALLY HAS a local rule allowing the fixing of spike marks.) Just MHO in this case, and I don't think it is clear-cut. But the 27.1 case is clear-cut, not just opinion. Cheers! DaveT
