What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Hawkeye77]

I will.

As long as I’ve been on here they have been called private messages - “PM”s. Suggesting they aren’t described and intended as such is more than a little weak. This has devolved in a way I didn’t expect, frankly.

 

Intentions have nothing to do with it. You can make a mistake without ill will, own it, don’t come back with more and more excuses. It’s not Newby gets a pass and LICC deserved it because neither of those points of view are relevant.

 

Nobody can read someone else’s mind or what they “mean” - you start with the premise it is a private message, come on folks, that isn’t really a serious question. I always have and always will, whomever it comes from.

 

My last post as well on this subject.

[rogolf]

Moderators - this thread has, imo, reached the end of its useful purpose and should be closed. If someone wants to start a new thread on specific desired Rule changes, they can do so.

[nsxguy]

Moderators are not going to (automatically) see your post.

Click the "Flag" button on your post (or someone else' if you can't report your own post) and then click on "report". Then make your request there.

[rogolf]

Thanks. done.

[Mikey5e]

It's always interesting to me how certain people bash a thread but continue to show up in the thread and read the posts.

[Sean2]

So will this thread be closed because one person objects to it? An easy remedy for that is to simply avoid the thread.

[GwrxMod]

We won't close a topic unless it's requested by the OP or there are good reasons to close it. Are there reasons this should be closed?

 

[rogolf]

Imo, yes. The thread topic is for too general, it's gone on for five months and 61 pages (who is going to read that many pages to get a gist of the discussion), and could go on forever, has deteriorated into insults and accusations and it can easilty be replaced by discussions of prospective changes to specific Rules, each with their own thread. Readers/posters would then be able to read and respond to Rules of their interest.

[HitEmTrue]

Unlikely that the bickering will continue.

Closing a thread because it is long (popular?) doesn’t seem like a reason.

[deadsolid...shank]

I see no reason to close it. The main instigator is gone. And if someone wants to delete the small tangent discussion posts involving myself, Newby, and Hawkeye that would be fine by me. And I suspect they would be ok with it as well. Then the thread can continue back on its intended topic.

[Hawkeye77]

Yep, there isn't any "bickering" and no insults either (wtf) and whatever was being discussed related to the now missing instigator was quickly moved on from and done with. Opinions expressed, thread moves on - kind of how it should work, IMO. If someone wants to delete the quoted PM and any discussion related to it, deadsolid is correct, no issue from this part of the country but no lines crossed and it was in the context of the thread.

Just need a "hit into some guys with a 3 wood from 180 out, was I wrong" to get started and all will be right (wrong) with the rules forum!

 

[Newby]

It is some four months since the OP was on the scene. I doubt he will visit again soon.. A lot of the early posts relate to old regurgitated topics (eg divots). Since one poster's posts have been removed a large number now make no sense. I think the tread has served its purpose and should be locked. But I won't lose sleep if it isn't.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

It was strange reading those responses. I wondered why @Vindog appeared to be talking to himself through ten or twelve posts?

[Sawgrass]

Now THERE'S a reason to close down a thread. Vindog's mental health must not be impugned!

[Mikey5e]

As long it remains civil,which it has,no probs.

Rules question:

Should grounding a club be legal in a hazard as long as you don't improve your lie?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I think this is intended to be a simple and casual grounding, but obviously most will likely just “test the sand”.

The thing is, if a person needs to push a club into the sand or other hazard, seems like it wouldn’t help that player anyway?

[KevCarter]

We no longer have hazards.

You may ground your club in a penalty area.

Bunkers are treated a little differently. You may not ground your club directly in front of or behind your ball. I think that makes sense. Pretty hard not to test the sand or improve your lie when grounding your club in a bunker.JMO

[Sawgrass]

I have benefited from the new rule allowing you to ground your club in a bunker away from the ball. I like to grip my club after laying it open on the ground, and I used to have to remember to do that outside the bunker and sometimes I’d forget and have to go back out. A time-waster I’m no longer burdened with.

[KevCarter]

Good change!

[LICC]

As a general matter in life- in your dealings at work, personal conversations, et al- you never circulate any communication publicly or to a broad group unless you are CERTAIN that person is fine with you doing so.
I'll assume @Newby did not have any ill intentions here so I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but @Hawkeye77 is right on this.

[Newby]

 

See 4th down 5.07pm today

[CaseyC]

I clicked on his name there and it said "last active' 5:00 pm today

[Mr. Bean]

So apart from a wild driver you also have a wild grip!

[slocagolfer]

I'd like to be able to fix ball marks off the green. I putt whenever I can - yes, I'm a poor chipper (but getting better!) - so it would be nice if those marks were knocked down.

[Mikey5e]

I would like to see a rule allowing a golfer the option of lift and place of their golf ball that lands in and unrepaired divot in the Fairway. These types of divots are man-made hazards, and are not natural to the lay of the land. Many fear this option because they think it would change the game in a negative way. Actually it would make the game that much more fair for those who had the skill the land the ball in the Fairway. A golfer should never be punished for hitting the Fairway.

[Newby]

If you go back through the 1800+ posts in this thread, you will see all the arguments about why it should or should not be eligible for relief. And also why it won't happen.

[nsxguy]

He wasn't satisfied debating the issue in the " So really...re: divots..." thread last Summer and apparently wasn't satisfied with the responses he got in THIS very thread back in September of last year.

Guess he gets an "A" for effort though. LOL

[Vindog]

While I don't think relief from divot holes are necessary at all, I wouldn't be pouty if it were changed. It's a slippery slope though, and I can't get around that. People have already mentioned having free relief ALL THE TIME in the fairay as a justification for having relief from divots. So if avoiding that means having no relief from divots then I'm in favor of having no relief from divots.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

[Augster]

Are we going to talk divots some more? Awesome.

 

If push came to shove, would anyone really be hurt by LCP within a CL in their own fairway? Most of the tourneys I play have that in place anyway. The codgers I play daily with play LCP in the fairway all year long. As do my friends in the northern part of the state.

 

Add in how often they are playing LCP on the PGA Tour (every round in Hawaii it seemed) and I doubt the game would collapse.

 

I play it down 90% of the time. Even when my friends, in casual rounds, are playing LCP. In tourney rounds with LCP, then I roll it. It’s how, I would say, the majority of casual golfers play anyway. Why not keep those players more inline with the rules instead of diverging from them?

 

It would make “divots in the fairway” and “what’s a divot what isn’t” completely moot points. Just IMO.