Why do we Question?

[petermo]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

The lawyer was not injured and did not cause the injury and did not hire himself.

Did he perhaps offer his services for a cut of a $2.7 million suit? Was the amount based on her future earnings - she was 81 after all

[petermo]

Re Threadjacking -

Almost every time there's a discussion about the "stupid rules" we have eternal debate about divots - we did it all last year. At least by accidentally referring to Mc Donald's we've had an insight into some peoples' views on personal responsibility which is what I was trying to illustrate in the first place.

Your ball's in a divot - tough, you put it there now deal with it. Just as you would if you bounced across a water hazard with a duffed shot (as we all have), ended up on the green and holed the putt for a birdie.

[Fileygolfer]

What about the guy in England, caught doing 140mph on a motorway and found to be over the limit (drink).
Got off free due to the fact the arresting Officer didn't read him his rights correctly.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

How much of the evidence presented at the trial have you heard?

I wasn't at the trial but have read all the articles, I believe, covering the case. I'm just not one of those that buys negligence in most cases as a way of receiving a wealthy settlement for ones own action. Now if it was maintenance procedures bypassed on a Ferris Wheel or an airplane or perhaps parts not properly installed on a vehicle then I believe there is a concern about negligence that a company should be responsible for.

I'll give you a personal example of such a case. My wife had a dog on a chain in her front yard and a neighbor boy threw rocks at the dog and even rode his bike into the yard to hit the dog with a stick. The kid was dumb enough not to know where the dog was lying was not the limit of the chain and the dog got up and leaped at him and bit his leg. It didn't break skin but the mother of the boy took him to the hospital and then sued for medical expenses which she was awarded. My wife asked the judge if she should have had a sign up "beware of dog" and he told her that would have been even worse because she would be advertising she had an aggressive dog. The point being the dog was not aggressive but at the time she didn't have a fence and didn't want the dog possibly getting run over by cars. The dog only lashed out at a tormentor. Perhaps if it happened today the child would be sent to child court for animal cruelty but this was around 15 years ago and the judge at that time ruled because of owners negligence to keep a dog confined where it couldn't attack a person even if it was in their own yard and the kid went out of his way to get bitten. This is just one little case in which suits like the McDonalds case infuriates me. Whether they served it hot enough to boil an egg is not the issue. An adult has to be responsible for their own actions and be required to use common sense or they suffer the stupidity consequences. We can always find fault with someones actions but unless those actions directly caused injury then the person responsible has to bear the quilt and accept the consequences. The hot coffee was hot enough to cause a burn but they didn't make her spill the coffee. The burn resulted because of the spill and not because hot coffee was in a cup with a lid served safely.

[petermo]

Right on, Coral! Even more common sense!!

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I wasn't at the trial but have read all the articles, I believe, covering the case. I'm just not one of those that buys negligence in most cases as a way of receiving a wealthy settlement for ones own action. Now if it was maintenance procedures bypassed on a Ferris Wheel or an airplane or perhaps parts not properly installed on a vehicle then I believe there is a concern about negligence that a company should be responsible for.

I'll give you a personal example of such a case. My wife had a dog on a chain in her front yard and a neighbor boy threw rocks at the dog and even rode his bike into the yard to hit the dog with a stick. The kid was dumb enough not to know where the dog was lying was not the limit of the chain and the dog got up and leaped at him and bit his leg. It didn't break skin but the mother of the boy took him to the hospital and then sued for medical expenses which she was awarded. My wife asked the judge if she should have had a sign up "beware of dog" and he told her that would have been even worse because she would be advertising she had an aggressive dog. The point being the dog was not aggressive but at the time she didn't have a fence and didn't want the dog possibly getting run over by cars. The dog only lashed out at a tormentor. Perhaps if it happened today the child would be sent to child court for animal cruelty but this was around 15 years ago and the judge at that time ruled because of owners negligence to keep a dog confined where it couldn't attack a person even if it was in their own yard and the kid went out of his way to get bitten. This is just one little case in which suits like the McDonalds case infuriates me. Whether they served it hot enough to boil an egg is not the issue. An adult has to be responsible for their own actions and be required to use common sense or they suffer the stupidity consequences. We can always find fault with someones actions but unless those actions directly caused injury then the person responsible has to bear the quilt and accept the consequences. The hot coffee was hot enough to cause a burn but they didn't make her spill the coffee. The burn resulted because of the spill and not because hot coffee was in a cup with a lid served safely.

Well, the jury did not agree with you and they heard the evidence.

But you are still ignoring an important legal principle. The question is more than whether she caused the spill, it is whether such a spill is reasonably forseeable by mc, donalds.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by petermo

Did he perhaps offer his services for a cut of a $2.7 million suit? Was the amount based on her future earnings - she was 81 after all

The jury award was reduced by the judge to $660,000 and the parties later settled for an undisclosed amount.

[GolfSavage]

And now back to the original topic, the Rules of Golf:


The USGA and R&A claim joint ownership of the Rules of Golf. The spend a bit of money every year printing copies of the rules, making decisions, doing revisions, etc. But who says we, as amateurs and non-tournament casual players, are bound by "their" rules? If you play in a YMCA basketball league, do they follow all the rules of the NBA? Does a bunch of kids playing sandlot baseball follow MLB rules? Who decides if they get a DH or not? Are there any other sports, whether team or individual, where the amateurs feel so compelled to follow the exact same rules as the professionals, and where a governing body basically "owns" the game?

As far as I'm concerned, when I play a round of golf, as long as everyone I'm playing with agrees to abide by the same "rules" and the same allowances (clean and place, mulligans, etc.), I don't care if it's true "kosher golf" as approved by the USGA. "Fair and equitable" is the standard that matters most of all.

[Leaguegolf]

Nobody is twisting your arm to play golf by the USGA or R&A Rules of Golf. However, if you enter into any kind of competetion (other than that played with your regular foursome) there has to be rules that everyone plays by.
The USGA's and R&A's are better than most.

Do you make "right field" an automatic out when only 3 of your foursome show up?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

And now back to the original topic, the Rules of Golf:


The USGA and R&A claim joint ownership of the Rules of Golf. The spend a bit of money every year printing copies of the rules, making decisions, doing revisions, etc. But who says we, as amateurs and non-tournament casual players, are bound by "their" rules? If you play in a YMCA basketball league, do they follow all the rules of the NBA? Does a bunch of kids playing sandlot baseball follow MLB rules? Who decides if they get a DH or not? Are there any other sports, whether team or individual, where the amateurs feel so compelled to follow the exact same rules as the professionals, and where a governing body basically "owns" the game?

As far as I'm concerned, when I play a round of golf, as long as everyone I'm playing with agrees to abide by the same "rules" and the same allowances (clean and place, mulligans, etc.), I don't care if it's true "kosher golf" as approved by the USGA. "Fair and equitable" is the standard that matters most of all.

You are right in that within your group of friends you can play anyway you want. But, if at some time in the future you decide you want to play in organized competitions, that can hurt you. You will be so used to playing by your rules that you will accidentally make mistakes in procedure, but the guys you play with in competition will call you on them. Not out of spite, but because that's just how it's done. The easiest way to protect yourself is to simply decide to do it right in the first place, make it a habit. It really isn't more difficult, it WILL make you better player in the long run. Then when someone asks "What's your best score?", your answer will have meaning in the world outside of your friendly group.

I play with guys who take all sorts of liberties with the rules... but I still play by the book regardless. When I say I shot 84, I really shot 84. When one of them says he shot 84, all I can do is bite my tongue and smile.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Nobody is twisting your arm to play golf by the USGA or R&A Rules of Golf. However, if you enter into any kind of competetion (other than that played with your regular foursome) there has to be rules that everyone plays by.
The USGA's and R&A's are better than most.

Do you make "right field" an automatic out when only 3 of your foursome show up?

We are obviously not bound by the USGA and R&A rules outside their sanctioned competitions or handicapping system, yet it has been stated by some that not playing by those rules means you're not really playing "golf". I find that absurd, as the USGA and R&A may own the set of rules they print, but that doesn't give them ownership over everything "golf". So abide by their rules when necessary to do so, otherwise, keep it "fair and equitable".

Does your son play baseball by the MLB rules? If not, does that mean he's not really playing baseball? Do high school and college football teams follow the same rules as the NFL? No, of course not. But it's still football!

As long as you're attempting to place a small ball into a hole in the ground using various lofted clubs in the fewest number of strokes, it's a form of golf!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

We are obviously not bound by the USGA and R&A rules outside their sanctioned competitions or handicapping system, yet it has been stated by some that not playing by those rules means you're not really playing "golf". I find that absurd, as the USGA and R&A may own the set of rules they print, but that doesn't give them ownership over everything "golf". So abide by their rules when necessary to do so, otherwise, keep it "fair and equitable".

Does your son play baseball by the MLB rules? If not, does that mean he's not really playing baseball? Do high school and college football teams follow the same rules as the NFL? No, of course not. But it's still football!

As long as you're attempting to place a small ball into a hole in the ground using various lofted clubs in the fewest number of strokes, it's a form of golf!

You can rationalize it any way you want to, but the rules are the only thing that defines any game, and the only rules for golf are established and maintained by the USGA and the R & A. If you want to actually play golf as it is recognized around the world, then you play by the rules they set. If you ever want to be able to talk about the game, compare notes on performance with someone from another part of the US or overseas, then you have to play by the same rules they play by, or the discussion is meaningless.

The rules of golf are NOT just something invented for professional golfers to obey. They are the rules of the game, period, and any general discussion about golf assumes that those rules are in force, otherwise you are talking about a different game. It may superficially resemble golf, but I'm sorry, it isn't golf. I usually call it "Goofy Golf".

Using your own example of baseball, while amateur softball leagues don't play by MLB rules, they still have a written rulebook and they are still required to play by those rules. Each team doesn't just make them up as they go along. It just so happens that golf is better organized than baseball/softball, thus the only 2 governing bodies are in in accord on how the game is to be played, and there are NO lesser organizations which are sanctioned to create rules or forms of play. If I go to Scotland, or to India, or to Australia, I will still be playing the same game because I play by the only rules for the game, and those rules are recognized around the world.

So you can say you're playing golf if that's what you want, but the moment you step outside of your little group of friends, your rules will be unrecognized, and your accomplishments will be meaningless.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

yet it has been stated by some that not playing by those rules means you're not really playing "golf". I find that absurd,

Chill.

When people make that statment they are saying that the rules of golf should be literally interpreted. There is a definition of the game of golf in the rules and if you define it any other way, you are not interpreting the rules in the literal fashion desired. No one is saying you can't play a game with a club and ball by other rules, it is only a reminder that any discussion about the rules of golf must proceed from a literal reading. Therefore, if you do not play by the rules you are not playing golf as it is defined in the rules.

I am not familiar with the rules of baseball or football...but do they contain a definitiion of the game as in the rules of golf?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You can rationalize it any way you want to, but the rules are the only thing that defines any game, and the only rules for golf are established and maintained by the USGA and the R & A. If you want to actually play golf as it is recognized around the world, then you play by the rules they set. If you ever want to be able to talk about the game, compare notes on performance with someone from another part of the US or overseas, then you have to play by the same rules they play by, or the discussion is meaningless.

The rules of golf are NOT just something invented for professional golfers to obey. They are the rules of the game, period, and any general discussion about golf assumes that those rules are in force, otherwise you are talking about a different game. It may superficially resemble golf, but I'm sorry, it isn't golf. I usually call it "Goofy Golf".

Using your own example of baseball, while amateur softball leagues don't play by MLB rules, they still have a written rulebook and they are still required to play by those rules. Each team doesn't just make them up as they go along. It just so happens that golf is better organized than baseball/softball, thus the only 2 governing bodies are in in accord on how the game is to be played, and there are NO lesser organizations which are sanctioned to create rules or forms of play. If I go to Scotland, or to India, or to Australia, I will still be playing the same game because I play by the only rules for the game, and those rules are recognized around the world.

So you can say you're playing golf if that's what you want, but the moment you step outside of your little group of friends, your rules will be unrecognized, and your accomplishments will be meaningless.

What an elitist attitude! Who sanctions the governing bodies? There's no Congressional meetings, no Parliamentary proceeding, no UN resolution that gives the USGA and R&A exclusivity when it comes to golf. It's the people who play the game who decide what body governs the sport, and what rules they will abide. There is absolutely no reason there cannot be another organization of players who agree to a set of rules for what they consider to be golf, with the basic play of the game the same, or changes made in any form they see fit. And no reason those same players could not also compete in USGA competition and hold a USGA recognized handicap. Just because some organization is the self-proclaimed golf authority doesn't make it so.

I compared baseball to baseball, not softball to baseball. Softball and baseball are two different sports. But Little League, high school, college baseball and MLB are quite different in many aspects, but their basic premise is the same. A college player can use an aluminum bat, but that doesn't nullify the fact that he hits .305 for the season, or mean that he will be surprised to find out he has to use a wooden bat when he makes the minor leagues. So at different levels of play different allowances are made.

From what I am told, there are 2 types of rugby leagues, with some major rules differences. But it is still considered rugby.

When our NBA basketball players go to the Olympics, they have to adjust to the international rules. It doesn't mean they weren't playing basketball before the Olympics, or that what they play in the Olympics is not basketball. It's just different forms of the game.

We have scrambles, best balls, match play, stroke play, bingo bango bongo, and many other forms of "golf". Winter rules, improving your lie, mulligans, and other variations from the "rules" are known and played by millions of golfers. How many of them are going to play in a USGA tourney and tee up another shot on the first tee, saying they're taking a mulligan? Or who's going to nudge their ball out of a divot because "me and my buddies always do that!"?

So, yes, knowing and playing by USGA rules will make you a better prepared golfer IF YOU PLAN TO PLAY IN USGA EVENTS. It won't necessarily make you a "better golfer". I'd venture a guess that 90% or more of the people playing golf will NEVER compete in a USGA / R&A event, so why expect those same recreational golfers to strictly adhere to every nuance of the "official rules", when all they want to do is enjoy a day on the course? If making adjustments that suit them and their golf buddies adds to their enjoyment, why try to belittle them or lessen their joy by claiming they aren't playing "golf", or that they are playing "Goofy Golf"?

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Does your son play baseball by the MLB rules?

Yes, he does. American League rules BTW. Different sports have different rules for what some consider the same game, NBA rules vs Olympic rules for instance. Golf is different in that the rules set forth by the USGA and the R&A cover a larger percentage of competitive golf events.

Originally Posted by golfsavage

As long as you're attempting to place a small ball into a hole in the ground using various lofted clubs in the fewest number of strokes, it's a form of golf!

Yes it is a "form" of golf although some have better "form" than others.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

What an elitist attitude!

The rules of golf and the usga and r&a as governing bodies are accepted by thousands of clubs and millions of golfers around the world. You are among a distinct minority who want the rest of us to abandon adherence to them and the rules and thus you are the elitist.

Golf is a more or less a voluntary and self governing enterprise, it does not have to be and is not sanctioned by any superior body or elections by an electorate. It is not a democracy. If you do not like it, do not criticize those of us who do. Just don't ask for opinions on rules situations. If the rules do not apply to you, solve your own problems.

Nothing personal. Where do you play in Sarasota?

[GenErr]

I love this thread - from what I've read so far, since I'm someone who questions the "divot" rule, I'm a dredge on society, I don't really play the true game of "golf," I'm probably amoral, and walk around with coffee stains on my pants searching for a sleezy lawyer to take my case. What a hoot!

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by GenErr

walk around with coffee stains on my pants searching for a sleezy lawyer to take my case. What a hoot!

At least you admit that you are the one who searches for the sleazy lawyer.