What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

You keep saying it has no limit, but it does. I never said 18.1 is never required.

 

 

[LICC]

Where does 18.2 talk about unplayable lie relief?

And no, your version of Rule 19 renders 18.1 useless. You would never apply 18.1. So if you are right you must consider the USGA rulemakers as stupid.

[LICC]

Explain how 18.1 is not irrelevant given your view of Rule 19. And don't throw a tantrum just because you are stuck.

[LICC]

Any limit in Rule 19 is covered by Rule 17 or Rules 18.2 or 18.3

You can't come up with any situation that 18.1 would be used given your view of Rule 19.

[HitEmTrue]

Have you read the definition of a lost ball?

Just because you haven’t found the ball yet, doesn’t mean it is lost yet.

The rules are clear that a ball can be neither lost or found at the same time. From rule 18.3:

“For a ball that might be lost, this applies:

• When the original ball has not been found and identified and is not yet lost”

If you process to hit another ball while it is in that unknown status, without announcing provisional, you have invoked 18.1. Even if by accident.

 

( edit...I see where you are coming from now )

while in this unknown status, you don’t know if it is OB. Don’t know if it is in PA. You cannot use 19. You can use 18.1.

 

[LICC]

Nope. If it’s PA you can use 17. If it’s OB you can use 18.2. Anything else, according to you, you can use 19.

18.1 is unnecessary in your view

[Vindog]

Thank you for admitting that.

 

Ive seen players blast a ball so far right that they just tee up another one. Searching for the ball isn't compulsory, so we had no idea if it was playable, unplayable, in a PA or OB. But the player may always proceed under stroke and distance. 18.1

 

I've also seen players top one to the left into the brush off the 1st hole at Causeway Club in SW Harbor. If you find it, you need to play it somehow, but one guy in particular Mike H. would just hit another one WITHOUT announcing a provisional, and without even looking for it. 18.1

[sui generis]

Who writes your stuff? It feels like a time warp back to 2008 and we are listening to that goofy woman from Wasilla. Though she occasionally made sense when she read something written for her. You need a new writer.

[LICC]

Under your view of Rule 19, nothing you described required 18.1 in order to re-tee and hit another one.

[Vindog]

The first bulletpoint in 19.2 exists because 18.1 allows it. Not sure what the hangup is here.

[HitEmTrue]

Without 18.1, someone would knock it off the planet...to an unknown status. He then tees a ball and hits it, saying that he’s taking stroke and distance. The other player says “under what rule?”

The first player proceeds to say that it is under 19, 17, or 18.2. All the bases are covered.

The other player is quite stubborn, insisting that he MUST know which rule he is invoking.

Several pages of arguing later, they get the USGA involved, and they publish a decision. Or Rule 18.1.

I’m not real sure why the clarity brought by 18.1 bothers you so much.

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

Nope. That references 14, not 18

[Vindog]

18.1 allows the bulletpoint in 19.2.

14.6 defines the procedure for playing from where the previous stroke was made, which is what you must do when proceeding under S&D. If you do that incorrectly, there is a penalty, as Tiger Woods found out, albeit under the old rules

 

Not sure what the hangup is here.

[LICC]

Relief is available in any of the three Rules according to you, so no one can object. Rule 18.1 is irrelevant.

[Vindog]

The relief availabe in those rules is because 18.1 allows it. No matter wherer the ball lay or no matter what the procedure is for R17 for example, a player may always proceed under S&D. It's only logical that this point is reinforced in the other rules as a relief option. Those rules are reiterating 18.1, not the other way around.

 

So redundancy is your issue. Great. Clarity is never a bad thing, imo

 

 

[LICC]

Nope. Each rule provides its own relief provision.

[Vindog]

Nope. Each of those rules includes, as a relief option, that which is expressly allowed by 18.1.

 

 

[LICC]

Yeah you’re just making that up. Sorry, that failed. Keep trying.

[Vindog]

Oh? Which part did I make up?

 

[antip]

Well done, LICC. You have totally misunderstand the question and the answer and applied your own selective interpretation for your own nefarious ends. The question simply aims to get people more familiar with the different levels of penalties that apply under the (then forthcoming 2019) Rules of Golf as outlined in 1.3c(2). Best to give up your one man war on this nonsensical front and contribute to other genuine (rather than imagined) rules issues.

[LICC]

That 18.1 is not duplicative.

[Vindog]

Which part did I make up?

[sdandrea]

Guys, when you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in mud, but the pig likes it. Stop being troll bait, and he'll go away.

[LICC]

“The relief availabe in those rules is because 18.1 allows it.”

You just made that up. It’s patently false.

[Vindog]

Except for the fact that it’s supported.

[LICC]

Nope, it’s patently false. Nothing in the other rules rely on 18.1. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

[Vindog]

Cool. If that's what you're hanging your hat on I guess. But it may be the reddest herring so far.

 

 

[rogolf]

Agree, and it just ain't worth the attention it's received. Time to ignore and let it die on the vine.

[LICC]

Right, when your argument fails and you are stuck, just ignore it and let it die.

[rogolf]

Trust me, I'm not stuck on any argument, but I can recognize what's a battle and what's a war. Your battle ain't worth fighting - it's irrelevant.