USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Vindog]

If I had ears like Westwood, I could echo-locate for my balls.

[Augster]

If you can't hit at least 1 in 3 straight, why bother playing on the course. Get down to the driving range

 

There's no money to be made at the driving range.

 

I spend money at the driving range, I MAKE money on the golf course.

[Newby]

If you can't hit at least 1 in 3 straight, why bother playing on the course. Get down to the driving range

 

There's no money to be made at the driving range.

 

I spend money at the driving range, I MAKE money on the golf course.

 

Betting on the odds of finding your ball ? ;)

[Stuart_G]

I don't know. But considering the #1 rule or core fundamental premise or foundation of the game is to "play the ball as it lies", and also considering that you can't do that if you can't find the ball, then I would think that any change to the rules to better allow you to fulfill that fundamental can't really be much of a negative change - and in my mind, it would be a positive one. The positive impact on pace of play would be a clear secondary benefit as well and a worthy argument on it's own.

 

But then, I've never been a fan of many aspects to rule 14-3 - and one of the few disappointments I have with these new proposed changes was the lack of any real changes to that rule. But I guess you can't please everyone.

[finleysg]

I don't know. But considering the #1 rule or core fundamental premise or foundation of the game is to "play the ball as it lies", and also considering that you can't do that if you can't find the ball, then I would think that any change to the rules to better allow you to fulfill that fundamental can't really be much of a negative change - and in my mind, it would be a positive one. The positive impact on pace of play would be a clear secondary benefit as well and a worthy argument on it's own.

 

But then, I've never been a fan of many aspects to rule 14-3 - and one of the few disappointments I have with these new proposed changes was the lack of any real changes to that rule. But I guess you can't please everyone.

 

I'm happy to see distance measuring devices will probably be ok. Just curious - what other changes were you hoping to see re 14.3?

[nsxguy]

So when Phil Mickelson hits a shot into the knee-deep and a volunteer marshal plants a little red flag right beside it, does that destroy the challenge of the game?

 

No, he's still got to hit it.

 

But by all means, bring a forecaddie and,,,,, you can be just like Phil,,,,,,,,,,,,

[North Butte]

Right. If I have enough money to employ a caddie and a couple forecaddies to tell me where my ball is at all times, that's me appreciating the challenge of the game. But if I use a box in my pocket to tell me where my ball is that's cheating and akin to bowling with bumpers in the gutters.

 

[Vindog]

Most of the time I'm a "suck it up" kid of guy, but man I would LOVE to be able use a locating device. Obviously there are some issues with implementation but dang I'd be all for it.

[Roadking2003]

I don't know. But considering the #1 rule or core fundamental premise or foundation of the game is to "play the ball as it lies", and also considering that you can't do that if you can't find the ball, then I would think that any change to the rules to better allow you to fulfill that fundamental can't really be much of a negative change - and in my mind, it would be a positive one.

 

That "foundation of the game" was thrown out ages ago. Almost half of a golfer's strokes (PGA Tour and amateurs) come after picking up the ball and cleaning it on the green. And in addition, we get to lift and clean when embedded, when in casual water, when on a cart path, etc. So we don't even come close to playing the ball as it lies.

[sui generis]

I don't know. But considering the #1 rule or core fundamental premise or foundation of the game is to "play the ball as it lies", and also considering that you can't do that if you can't find the ball, then I would think that any change to the rules to better allow you to fulfill that fundamental can't really be much of a negative change - and in my mind, it would be a positive one.

 

That "foundation of the game" was thrown out ages ago. Almost half of a golfer's strokes (PGA Tour and amateurs) come after picking up the ball and cleaning it on the green. And in addition, we get to lift and clean when embedded, when in casual water, when on a cart path, etc. So we don't even come close to playing the ball as it lies.

 

You're under no obligation to sully your score with such actions. :swoon: The Rules permitting such abominations say "may" not "must." If you don't participate in the new-fangled stuff, eventually your index will reflect your pure notions. Have at it!

[Sawgrass]

As has been evident in my prior posts, I'm not interested in the game getting easier. I did support the use of rangefinders, since they don't tell you anything that you can't find out by pacing around -- so IMO they did nothing more than appropriately/effectively speed up play.

 

But you guys who are lusting for an electronic ball finder: do you also wish that slope rangefinders were legal? Would you want electronic aiming/alignment devices to be legal/available? After all, finding balls, selecting clubs and lining you up are all things that a caddie can do for you . . . are your preferences leading you to a significantly electronic future?

[LeoLeo99]

As has been evident in my prior posts, I'm not interested in the game getting easier. I did support the use of rangefinders, since they don't tell you anything that you can't find out by pacing around -- so IMO they did nothing more than appropriately/effectively speed up play.

 

But you guys who are lusting for an electronic ball finder: do you also wish that slope rangefinders were legal? Would you want electronic aiming/alignment devices to be legal/available? After all, finding balls, selecting clubs and lining you up are all things that a caddie can do for you . . . are your preferences leading you to a significantly electronic future?

 

Rather see them get rid of caddies. Golf isn't a team sport. Carry your own clubs (or push them in a cart.)

[North Butte]

do you also wish that slope rangefinders were legal?

 

Not particularly although I don't think it matters much one way or the other. Anything you're allowed to measure ahead of time and write down in the yardage book to refer to while you play would be just as legitimate if measured during the round. Distance, slope, whatever. If you think the information should not be available then it should not be available whether in writing, verbally by a caddie or--horrors!--electronically.

 

Would you want electronic aiming/alignment devices to be legal/available?

 

No, not electronically, not by a caddie.

 

After all, finding balls, selecting clubs and lining you up are all things that a caddie can do for you

 

I would prefer caddies not be allowed to line players up. I am at the very least in favor of the proposed change to keep them from doing so by standing behind the player, which never should have been allowed to start with.

 

. . . are your preferences leading you to a significantly electronic future?

 

I have an electric motor in my push cart. Does that offend you too? After all it replaces a caddie and for me at least makes the game significantly easier.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

I have an electric motor in my push cart. Does that offend you too? After all it replaces a caddie and for me at least makes the game significantly easier.

 

I don't care if you want to drive, and conversely I'm just fine with the C of C precluding it at times. The only thing that in a sense "offends" me is people not taking responsibility for their poor, possibly lost, shots.

[North Butte]

Of course I take responsibility for a shot in the woods or rough. I play it from where it lies. You still have offered no meaningful difference between a forecaddie and an electronic ball finder except to say "electronic future" as though that was so scary you don't need any rational argument.

 

So are your principles so sacred that you refuse to even look for your ball? Or do you refuse to play it if found by your opponent?

 

Or worse yet, do you refuse to help search for an opponent or partner or fellow competitor's ball because by doing so you would be letting the pathetic wretch escape his just reward?

 

[Roadking2003]

I don't know. But considering the #1 rule or core fundamental premise or foundation of the game is to "play the ball as it lies", and also considering that you can't do that if you can't find the ball, then I would think that any change to the rules to better allow you to fulfill that fundamental can't really be much of a negative change - and in my mind, it would be a positive one.

 

That "foundation of the game" was thrown out ages ago. Almost half of a golfer's strokes (PGA Tour and amateurs) come after picking up the ball and cleaning it on the green. And in addition, we get to lift and clean when embedded, when in casual water, when on a cart path, etc. So we don't even come close to playing the ball as it lies.

 

You're under no obligation to sully your score with such actions. :swoon: The Rules permitting such abominations say "may" not "must." If you don't participate in the new-fangled stuff, eventually your index will reflect your pure notions. Have at it!

 

Not cleaning your ball on the green or not taking relief from a cart path would not be "pure notions". It would be idiocy.

[Sean2]

I wonder if the USGA is reading this thread. It would certainly give them an idea of how avid golfers feel about the rules changes.

[Sawgrass]

Of course I take responsibility for a shot in the woods or rough. I play it from where it lies. You still have offered no meaningful difference between a forecaddie and an electronic ball finder except to say "electronic future" as though that was so scary you don't need any rational argument.

 

So are your principles so sacred that you refuse to even look for your ball? Or do you refuse to play it if found by your opponent?

 

Or worse yet, do you refuse to help search for an opponent or partner or fellow competitor's ball because by doing so you would be letting the pathetic wretch escape his just reward?

 

Don't distort my position. I already noted I respect the use of range finders, which as we know are electronic. The use of electronics is not the issue for me at all.

 

You are kidding yourself when you say you take responsibility for a shot potentially lost in the woods or rough when you simultaneously say you want an electronic device to find it for you. That device would likely do a far better job than you (or your caddie, which you don't perversely say you don't want) at finding your poorly struck ball. So you, in your ideal vision of the future, would be considerably freed from worrying about hitting a good drive. I know this upsets you, but I don't like that idea.

 

I want the pressure.

[Sawgrass]

I wonder if the USGA is reading this thread. It would certainly give them an idea of how avid golfers feel about the rules changes.

 

I know we frequently differ in our perspectives on the USGA, but may I respectfully ask if you have responded to their request for feedback on the proposal? The survey they offer is, IMO, well constructed.

[LeoLeo99]

I wonder if the USGA is reading this thread. It would certainly give them an idea of how avid golfers feel about the rules changes.

 

I know we frequently differ in our perspectives on the USGA, but may I respectfully ask if you have responded to their request for feedback on the proposal? The survey they offer is, IMO, well constructed.

 

The discussion on here provides a lot more rationale and thought process to opinions on the proposed rules changes.

[Shilgy]

Of course I take responsibility for a shot in the woods or rough. I play it from where it lies. You still have offered no meaningful difference between a forecaddie and an electronic ball finder except to say "electronic future" as though that was so scary you don't need any rational argument.

 

So are your principles so sacred that you refuse to even look for your ball? Or do you refuse to play it if found by your opponent?

 

Or worse yet, do you refuse to help search for an opponent or partner or fellow competitor's ball because by doing so you would be letting the pathetic wretch escape his just reward?

 

Don't distort my position. I already noted I respect the use of range finders, which as we know are electronic. The use of electronics is not the issue for me at all.

 

You are kidding yourself when you say you take responsibility for a shot potentially lost in the woods or rough when you simultaneously say you want an electronic device to find it for you. That device would likely do a far better job than you (or your caddie, which you don't perversely say you don't want) at finding your poorly struck ball. So you, in your ideal vision of the future, would be considerably freed from worrying about hitting a good drive. I know this upsets you, but I don't like that idea.

 

I want the pressure.

I can, kind of, understand your position on the ball finders. What about if you stripe a drive down the middle but it plugs in soft ground? Should that be difficult to find or would electronic assistance be more palatable? How about in the fall when leaves cover the fairway? I was initially against range finders but then joined a club that was not well marked with yardage markers. Range finders sped up the process but I am still against the slope function. I gotta admit I would be for the ball finders. They would speed up play. Another thing to think about on the issue is that all courses are not equal in ease of finding balls. Rough, trees, scrub in the desert, these things vary so much that an offline shot is not equally punished.

Just my $0.02.

[North Butte]

I take responsibility for knowing how far to hit the ball. I shoot the distance with a laser rather than walking all the way to the green and back. I take responsibility for pulling the correct club from the bag but prefer having the clubs numbered 4, 5, 6, etc on the sole to make that easier.

 

Refusing to offer any logical argument and continuing to try and turn it around into some sort of insult is puerile.

 

Blocked.

[Sawgrass]

I wonder if the USGA is reading this thread. It would certainly give them an idea of how avid golfers feel about the rules changes.

 

I know we frequently differ in our perspectives on the USGA, but may I respectfully ask if you have responded to their request for feedback on the proposal? The survey they offer is, IMO, well constructed.

 

The discussion on here provides a lot more rationale and thought process to opinions on the proposed rules changes.

 

I most certainly agree.

[Sawgrass]

I take responsibility for knowing how far to hit the ball. I shoot the distance with a laser rather than walking all the way to the green and back. I take responsibility for pulling the correct club from the bag but prefer having the clubs numbered 4, 5, 6, etc on the sole to make that easier.

 

Refusing to offer any logical argument and continuing to try and turn it around into some sort of insult is puerile.

 

Blocked.

 

While I disagree about your preference, I regret your feeling insulted. And I regret not having communicated my logic.

[Stuart_G]

You are kidding yourself when you say you take responsibility for a shot potentially lost in the woods or rough when you simultaneously say you want an electronic device to find it for you. That device would likely do a far better job than you (or your caddie, which you don't perversely say you don't want) at finding your poorly struck ball. So you, in your ideal vision of the future, would be considerably freed from worrying about hitting a good drive. I know this upsets you, but I don't like that idea.

 

I want the pressure.

 

I also disagree wrt one 'kidding yourself'. To some the ultimate responsibility is having to play it from where it ended up.

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the ability to find ones ball is an inherent skill of the game? And ones score should be a reflection of their ability to find the ball (or not)?

 

I would say that there is little evidence to suggest the rules support such a position. Rule 8 limits some things you previously mentioned - like club selection, alignment, etc.. to the player and his caddie (or partners). But there is no limit on how many people can help you find your ball. One can use as many resources to achieve that within the allotted time as they can manage (or randomly happen to have). The only restriction is that electronic means can't be used. To me that is a clear contradiction to such view that the ability to be able to find ones ball is any type of important inherent skill of the game.

 

Well when we say electronic devices can't be used - that's not 100% correct. It's only an issue on tour but it got me thinking. The decision that disallows the use of electronic devices to help find the ball only really mentions chips embedded in the ball. However, there have been numerous instances where the actual TV coverage has been used to help the tour players find where their balls ended up. The most memorable being the case where Rory almost lost his ball in that tree branch at the 2012 PGA at Kiawah. They never would have found it w/o reviewing the TV footage - and those cameras recording (and replaying) the broadcast clearly are electronic devices. Is there really that much difference between that and using an embedded chip? I don't think so but apparently the USGA does. The main question of interest is trying to understand why?

[Sean2]

I wonder if the USGA is reading this thread. It would certainly give them an idea of how avid golfers feel about the rules changes.

 

I know we frequently differ in our perspectives on the USGA, but may I respectfully ask if you have responded to their request for feedback on the proposal? The survey they offer is, IMO, well constructed.

 

Not yet, though I plan to. I am still digesting some of the changes.

[Sawgrass]

You are kidding yourself when you say you take responsibility for a shot potentially lost in the woods or rough when you simultaneously say you want an electronic device to find it for you. That device would likely do a far better job than you (or your caddie, which you don't perversely say you don't want) at finding your poorly struck ball. So you, in your ideal vision of the future, would be considerably freed from worrying about hitting a good drive. I know this upsets you, but I don't like that idea.

 

I want the pressure.

 

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the ability to find ones ball is an inherent skill of the game? And ones score should be a reflection of their ability to find the ball (or not)?

 

 

 

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

Sure, I get that pros get extra help. I don't have an equitable way to avoid that, and I don't much care since they live in a different world anyway. I'm primarily focused on competing with my buddies (all caddie-less), and occasionally feeling the satisfaction of pulling the same ball out of the 18th hole that I teed up on the first.

 

Beyond that, unlike the presumably perfect result of an electronic ball finder, the pros sometimes lose balls too.

[nsxguy]

Right. If I have enough money to employ a caddie and a couple forecaddies to tell me where my ball is at all times, that's me appreciating the challenge of the game. But if I use a box in my pocket to tell me where my ball is that's cheating and akin to bowling with bumpers in the gutters.

 

I never said a box in your pocket was cheating. If they are available and become legal knock yourself out.

 

You seemed to be upset that Mickelson had a "forecaddie". You're allowed one as well. Just costs you - doesn't cost him.

 

I can't afford to swap shafts out every week but Mickelson gets it done whenever, wherever, for nuttin'. You don't see me complaining about it though.

[North Butte]

My only reason for mentioning caddies and forecaddies is as examples of the numerous agencies other than the golfer who are allowed to find the golfers ball and pointed it out to him. The only conceivable reason to single out one such agency, an electronic device, is because the person making the rules has a purely personal dislike for seeing a golfer with some kind of gadget in hand.

 

Trying to dress up the distinction between buying an electronic gadget and hiring a personal servant to provide EXACTLY the same information as having something to do with the fundamental "challenge" of the game is ridiculous. Saying it is about "responsibility" is truly bent.

[KevCarter]

My only reason for mentioning caddies and forecaddies is as examples of the numerous agencies other than the golfer who are allowed to find the golfers ball and pointed it out to him. The only conceivable reason to single out one such agency, an electronic device, is because the person making the rules has a purely personal dislike for seeing a golfer with some kind of gadget in hand.

 

Trying to dress up the distinction between buying an electronic gadget and hiring a personal servant to provide EXACTLY the same information as having something to do with the fundamental "challenge" of the game is ridiculous. Saying it is about "responsibility" is truly bent.

 

Sawgrass gives his opinion as a gentleman, constantly. He never crosses the line. You however, try to strengthen your opinions with personal attacks. Douchebaggery.