[

Rulesman wrote:

]The point is that if the are two areas specially prepared, only one can be [[[]]]th[[[]]]e green. The other is a wrong green. Grammar aside, that is what the Ruling Bodies say.[

]

Unfortunately, in the game of golf, what the ruling body says is oftentimes different from what the rulebook says. The USGA seems to make things up as they go along, not unlike many "dishonest" players I run into.

[

jev wrote:

][ Rulesman wrote: ]]]]]If they are two separate surfaces, the one without a flagstick is a wrong green.[[[ ]]] I disagree here. Read the definition of "Putting Green" carefully: ------8<---------------------- The "putting green" is all ground of the hole being played that is specially prepared for putting or otherwise defined as such by the Committee. A ball is on the putting green when any part of it touches the putting green. ------8<---------------------- It talks about [[[]]]the[[[]]] putting green, not [[[]]]a[[[]]] putting green. And [[[]]]the[[[]]] putting green covers all ground of the hole that is specially prepared for putting. Thus, without one of them being marked as anything else than a putting green, both areas are part of [[[]]]the [[[]]]putting green and thus there is no "wrong" putting green here. This is the main reason why we always define the winter greens as GUR when not in use (and vice versa). I do feel however that a course providing a putting green that is split into levels from which one cannot be reached from the other by putting should not be taken seriously. Such a feature is nice for putty-putt or midget-golf, not for "true" golf.[

]

I disagree. The course, Wildflower, is one of the nicest I've ever played.

[

Bryan K wrote:

]The USGA seems to make things up as they go along, [

]

In this case the ruling came from the R&A.

But they and the USGA are entitled to make up the rulings. After all they wrote the Rules.

I was at a meeting of senior national referees yesterday and mentioned this during a break. All said 'wrong green'. Most added the comment 'what nonsense'. But then, what do they know?

I played a course last year that had two greens for one par three. They were separated by a creek and at different elevations. This course had a local rule that any ball landing on the green in which the hole was not placed, relief would be granted at the closest point off the green not nearer the hole with no penalty.

GolfnDawg wrote:

I played a course last year that had two greens for one par three. They were separated by a creek and at different elevations. This course had a local rule that any ball landing on the green in which the hole was not placed, relief would be granted at the closest point off the green not nearer the hole with no penalty.

The Local Rule is nearly right but is redundant.
a) The ball must be dropped not placed.
b) That is what Rule 25-3 is about.

Rulesman wrote:

GolfnDawg wrote: I played a course last year that had two greens for one par three. They were separated by a creek and at different elevations. This course had a local rule that any ball landing on the green in which the hole was not placed, relief would be granted at the closest point off the green not nearer the hole with no penalty. The Local Rule is nearly right but is redundant. a) The ball must be dropped not placed. b) That is what Rule 25-3 is about.

But as has been duly pointed out, the "ruling bodies'" interpretation of the rulebook in this case is quite incorrect.,

Bryan K wrote:

Rulesman wrote: GolfnDawg wrote: I played a course last year that had two greens for one par three. They were separated by a creek and at different elevations. This course had a local rule that any ball landing on the green in which the hole was not placed, relief would be granted at the closest point off the green not nearer the hole with no penalty. The Local Rule is nearly right but is redundant. a) The ball must be dropped not placed. b) That is what Rule 25-3 is about. But as has been duly pointed out, the "ruling bodies'" interpretation of the rulebook in this case is quite incorrect.,

What exactly is the justification for this statement ?
Who has provided the 'definitive' interpretation?

Rulesman wrote:

Bryan K wrote: Rulesman wrote: GolfnDawg wrote: I played a course last year that had two greens for one par three. They were separated by a creek and at different elevations. This course had a local rule that any ball landing on the green in which the hole was not placed, relief would be granted at the closest point off the green not nearer the hole with no penalty. The Local Rule is nearly right but is redundant. a) The ball must be dropped not placed. b) That is what Rule 25-3 is about. But as has been duly pointed out, the "ruling bodies'" interpretation of the rulebook in this case is quite incorrect., What exactly is the justification for this statement ? Who has provided the 'definitive' interpretation?

I think it has been duly pointed out, in regards to 25-3 and the definitions that accompany it, that the "ruling bodies" decided to make up rules on the fly in regards to this situation without taking into account what it actually says in the rule book.

Bryan K wrote:

I think it has been duly pointed out, in regards to 25-3 and the definitions that accompany it, that the "ruling bodies" decided to make up rules on the fly in regards to this situation without taking into account what it actually says in the rule book.

I still do not understand what you are getting at.
Where has it been pointed out?

1) What rules have been made by the R&A/USGA which do not take account what is said in the rule book?

2) And what is actually said in the rule book that they have not taken account of?

Just what and where is the conflict?

The definitions of Putting Green and Wrong Putting Green are clear. There is only one putting green per hole (witness the use of the word 'the' in the definition. Anything else is a wrong putting green.
What rule or rules conflict with this? Where in this thread has such a rule been identified?

Rulesman wrote:

Bryan K wrote: I think it has been duly pointed out, in regards to 25-3 and the definitions that accompany it, that the "ruling bodies" decided to make up rules on the fly in regards to this situation without taking into account what it actually says in the rule book. I still do not understand what you are getting at. Where has it been pointed out? 1) What rules have been made by the R&A/USGA which do not take account what is said in the rule book? 2) And what is actually said in the rule book that they have not taken account of? Just what and where is the conflict? The definitions of Putting Green and Wrong Putting Green are clear. There is only one putting green per hole (witness the use of the word 'the' in the definition. Anything else is a wrong putting green. What rule or rules conflict with this? Where in this thread has such a rule been identified?

yea, i've been at a loss reading this too.

According to the definition in the rules, "the putting green" is defined as "all ground of the hole being played that is specially prepared for putting". The singular definition of the term "the putting green" includes a plural modifier by use of the word "all".

Therefore, according to the rules, "the putting green" would include two different areas even if they were both separated by longer grass if both areas were specially prepared for putting. As long as both areas are in the ground of the hole being played, there would need to be a local rule differentiating that the one without the hole is a wrong green in order to permit a drop. There is nothing in the rulebook to specify that a hole with two different putting surfaces (constituting a single putting green) should be played any other way.

I see why you say what you say but believe that you are wrong in your interpretation.

The singular definition of the term "the putting green" includes a plural modifier by use of the word "all".
The use of the word 'all' in this case does not indicate plurality but means the totality of the area. If they had meant multiple areas they would have said 'any ground of ....'


Your interpretation would cover two prepared areas on one hole, both of which have a hole (although only one would have a flagstick). Surely the term 'prepared for putting' includes the making of a hole.

A temporary green would be included in your interpretation.

You suggest that a Local Rule would be needed to specify that the one without a flagstick is a wrong green. If that were so they would have put something in the Appendix of Local Rules. In fact every Wrong Green would have to have a Local Rule.

I would suggest that any ground cut to putting green length from which the committee intends a ball to be played, should have a Local Rule.

Rulesman wrote:

I see why you say what you say but believe that you are wrong in your interpretation. The singular definition of the term "the putting green" includes a plural modifier by use of the word "all". The use of the word 'all' in this case does not indicate plurality but means the totality of the area. If they had meant multiple areas they would have said 'any ground of ....'

I beleive you are mistaken. The term any is most often used to denote a singular item; therefore, the usage of the term "any" in this case could be (but isn't ncessarily) used to denote a single, uninterrupted area. To the contrary, the term "all" is meant to be inclusive, and without a modifier denoting that a portion of the described area is not included in the description, the only correct interpretation that can be surmised is one of all inclusion.

Quote:

Your interpretation would cover two prepared areas on one hole, both of which have a hole (although only one would have a flagstick). Surely the term 'prepared for putting' includes the making of a hole.

I wouldn't interpret it that way unless the rules specifically defined it that way. When I read about "ground that has been prepared forputting", I see no reference to a hold or a flagstick. Just the ground.

Quote:

A temporary green would be included in your interpretation. You suggest that a Local Rule would be needed to specify that the one without a flagstick is a wrong green. If that were so they would have put something in the Appendix of Local Rules. In fact every Wrong Green would have to have a Local Rule. I would suggest that any ground cut to putting green length from which the committee intends a ball to be played, should have a Local Rule.

And most courses that have temporary greens or maintenance greens have local rules that state that (at least the ones I've played). The one exception is a course that I've played that has a couple of holes that have multple greens. I interpret the rules to state that, since there is no local rule regarding these greens, any ball that lands on them is in play as it lies.

"I interpret the rules to state that, since there is no local rule regarding these greens, any ball that lands on them is in play as it lies".
Which words give you that impression? Why post a Local Rule when Rule 25-3 says it all?

I have officiated at 100s of courses and rarely see any local rules relating to wrong greens. The reason is of course that there is a perfectly satisfactory Rule and definition(s) making it unnecessary.

Some courses display the Rule itself when such greens are around (eg when work is in progress or during the winter).

But be sure a greenkeeper and/or a referee isn't around when you play off the normal green with a wedge when a temporary green is the green in play.

Rulesman wrote:

"I interpret the rules to state that, since there is no local rule regarding these greens, any ball that lands on them is in play as it lies". Which words give you that impression?

The fact that there is no rule, based on the definitions in the rule book, that gives any player the right to a free drop.

{quote] Why post a Local Rule when Rule 25-3 says it all?[/quote]

As I've pointed out, rule 25-3 obviously doesn't say it all. I hold a degree in English composition, and it's quite clear to me what the rules say.