We've received several letters on changes to the Rules of Golf for 2008. The most confusing change, perhaps because of the way we reported it in Golf Digest in January, has to do with "advice."

From one of several readers comes the basic question:

I was reading the rule changes for 2008-2009 in the January 2008 magazine. You said, on page 50, that "Advice clarified to include the exchange of information on distance". Could you please clarify?

Clarification: We got it wrong. That item should have read " to exclude" the exhange of information on distance. Indeed, the Definition of Advice has been altered so that distance is not part of advice and discussion of distance is allowed. Here is the new definition. See specifically paragraph two:

Advice ?Advice? is any counsel or suggestion that could influence a player in determining his play, the choice of a club or the method of making a stroke.

Information on the Rules, distance or matters of public information, such as the position of hazards or the flagstick on the putting green, is not advice.

So you can talk about distance, hole location or about the rules, as we're doing here, without incurring a penalty. You can also apologize for a mistake, which we do.

--Bob Carney

How do you get from Jack Nicholson to Equitable Stroke Control? I'm not sure, but reader Tim Fulton of Davie, Florida managed to do it and ask a good question at the same time:

The recent interview with Jack Nicholson was wonderful. It showed him to be the marvelous character in real life that he has portrayed so often in his career. His private rules for golf, which he "doesn't always observe but uses for amusement", are fun and all us weekend hackers understand the reason for them. I was appalled, but not surprised, when you listed him as tied for #47 on Hollywood?s top 100. In the very page before he admits to taking liberty with the rules of golf and yet you recognize his handicap. The reason I wasn't surprised is because the current USGA handicap system, as defined by the "Dean Knuth baloney of golf", is nothing more than a license to cheat with their Equitable Stroke Control system....

Equitable Stroke Control, most of you know, limits the score you can record for handicap purposes on any given hole:

0-9 Course Handicap has a max score of double bogey.
10-19 has a max score of 7 on any hole
20-29 max of 8

Tim isn't buying. And raises an interesting point:

Potential does not always mean good; a person has the potential to do bad also.... Are so called blow-up holes not part of the game? Everybody has them on occasion. If we follow that false logic, shouldn't "exceptional" holes also be adjusted? Eagles and hole in ones are in essence blow-up holes and shoul d be adjusted upward.....

Sometimes I get so mad at myself it's close to the assassination level. Then I get in the car and think, Why ruin other people's golf with your rotten, disgraceful attitude? Jack Nicholson

You guys are sticklers for the rules. Besides correcting us when we get rules questions wrong, you often object to rules-violators whom we cover. Latest example: Jack Nicholson, who espoused these rules of play:

1. No double bogeys on the first six holes.

2. I don't gamble. But if we must gamble, I only collect, I don't pay.

3. Under pressure, I'll cheat ya.

4. Any green in regulation, the second putt is called goo-oo-ood.

Anthony Abilo of Madison, N.J., can't abide our publicizing Jack's rules.

Your magazine should not be in the business of glorifying golfers who cheat when calculating their handicaps. According to the article, Nicholson has a 12.5?I am a struggling 27 handicap who always plays by the rules and would never think of doing anything dishonest on the golf course. It is an insult to the integrity of the game that Jack can boast a 12.5 handicap given his set of ?rules?.

Anthony, in my experience there are two types of handicap manipulators: those who try to keep their handicaps low and those who try to keep them high. Beware of both; the first as a partner, the second as an opponent. But in Jack's case, I think he's just trying to keep his blood pressure low. Though his rules don't work for me or you, being the upstanding rules citizens that we are, at least he's having fun. I suspect the Lakeside buddies who compete against him adjust for his "rules."

--Bob Carney

(Photo: Nigel Parry)

In a previous post, we confessed to one misplay in the rules story in December: "Is it allowed?" Let this be our second.

Situation No. 4 in the story read:

"Your opponent uses a bottle cap as a tee."

We said, "Yes", this was allowed. Not so. Pebblepete in a comment on this blog was one of the readers who protested our answer. Warren Simmons in Scottsdale was another. Warren, a Golf Digest course rating panelist,  longtime USGA committeeman and former Chair of the Colorado Golf Association, rightly points out that the definition of "tee", on which the rule rests, came in 2004. The change outlawed, among other things, the use of a pencil as a tee, which Chi Chi Rodriguez had made famous. Warren cites the definition:

"A tee is a device designed to raise a ball off the ground" from the Definition your incorrect answer references).  So far as I know, a bottle cap is not designed to do that (it is designed to keep liquid in a bottle).  When the definition of a "tee" was added to the Rules book in 2004, teeing up a ball on a pencil was no longer permitted, for the same reason.  Use of a bottle cap went out that same year.

Rule 11-1, after saying one may hit a tee shot off of the teeing ground, "a tee placed in or on the surface of the teeing ground, or sand or other natural substance placed on the surface of the teeing ground," goes on to say:

In teeing, if a player uses a non-conforming tee or any other object to raise the ball off the ground, he is disqualified.

Several others of you wrote in about this situation, but only Warren referenced the 2004 change. In short, it was the  designed to raise a ball off the ground clause in the definition and the any other object clause in the rule that proved us wrong. A call to the USGA rules department confirmed Warren's ruling.

I talked to a couple people who know the rules very well who were confused by this one, too. They remember Chi Chi's use of the pencil, but don't remember the 2004 change.

Thanks, Warren, and all of you who pointed this out.

One--well, me--can question the penalty, however. This merits disqualification but it's okay to play in six hours ?

Warren also questioned our answer to situation No. 8, wherein we "allowed" the use of a hat to mark the position of a lifted ball.  But he cut us a bit of slack.

I haven't checked with the USGA, but that's really stretching the Note to Rule 20-1, which suggests that "the position of a ball to be lifted should be marked by placing a ball marker, a small coin or other similar object immediately behind the ball."   A hat is hardly "a small coin or other similar object."  Decision 20-1/16 discourages, but allows use of a tee, loose impediment or toe of a club.  Using a hat, jacket or golf bag would be pushing the envelope a bit far in my opinion.  On the other hand, if there is some distinctive feature of the hat that clearly identifies the spot from which the ball is lifted (a button on the edge, the seam in the back, etc.), then I suppose the hat may be used to mark its position.

--Bob Carney

Robert Irwin of Sonora, California thinks we were sonoring when wrote the Rules Pop Quiz in the October issue. First, the quiz:

Q: You think the ball you just hit is in a water hazard, but you're not sure. Can you play a provisional ball?

A: Yes, but if it turns out the ball went into the hazard, the provisional must be abandoned, and you must proceed with your original ball.

Mr. Irwin isn't buying this. He feels that it reveals a laxness toward our rules column that is unacceptable:

You need to work harder to make sure that information presented in your "Rules" feature is correct. Rule 27-2 is quite clear, as is Decision 27-2a/2, and your October column contradicts them both. This is not the first time that I have found a rules error presented by your magazine, but it will be the last.

The question and answer on page 64 to which you refer is correct. If you check Decision 26-1/1, you will find "a player may NOT deem his ball lost in a water hazard simply because he thinks the ball may be in the hazard."

The question read, "You think the ball you just hit is in a water hazard but YOU'RE NOT SURE. Can you play a provisional ball?" Of course you can. There is not reasonable evidence to support the ball being lost in the hazard. In this case, if you don't find it in the hazard or outside, it should be treated as a lost ball.

Here's the key section of Rule 26-1:

Relief for Ball in Water Hazard It is a question of fact whether a ball lost after having been struck toward a water hazard is lost inside or outside the hazard. In order to treat the ball as lost in the hazard, there must be reasonable evidence tht the ball lodged in it. In the absence of such evidence, the ball must be treated as a lost ball and Rule 27 applies.

And the section of Rule 27-2:

Provisional Ball/Procedure If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before his or his partner goes foward to search for the original ball.

--Bob Carney