What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

Why should someone be penalized more because they have a skill, length, that someone else doesn’t? And who says long hitters hit OB more than short hitters. You have accurate and inaccurate long hitters and accurate and inaccurate short hitters. Long hitter or not, taking a penalty on a lost shot is a meaningful consequence. I can’t see someone saying they don’t care if they spray their driver because losing that stroke each time doesn’t matter.

[bladehunter]

That’s the answer I expected.

 

I’m not sure why you won’t engage in actual conversation on this particular rule. But I suspect it’s because we both know it’s not enforceable , therefore you can not argue that the Players aren’t anchoring.

 

My opinion on this grew when i started using a armlock putter.

My setup includes a longer than normal armlock ( I’m tall ) at 431/4 inches. I also am crouched over a good bit with ya forward press. So the butt of the putter sits just barely below the crease in my left elbow. At times I catch it above and also tucked in and touching my left stomach area.

So ive experimented with that and found that it’s crazy how much better the stroke is with 1/4 inch or so sticking above the elbow crease and that tucked into side feeling. This is obviously anchored. And I doubt seriously if you can see it with the naked eye. Especially if I have long sleeves on. ( can’t pick out that crease ) This fact has caused me to not want to play the armlock , even though it’s saved my game. I’m determined to not look like a cheater and to not be tempted to cheat.

 

Im not calling those guys cheaters. I understand the temptation, especially when playing for your pay. But I am saying that I see first hand how the rule allows this to be possible , and how the rule is a bad one.

Im actually in favor of repealing the anchor rule , then I could anchor and not feel like a cheat too

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

100% agree. What Langer does insults the game and the spirit of the rules.

[bladehunter]

It’s just math. You have to be more accurate or careful as a long hitter. Dispersion amplifies as length grows.

 

If a short hitter is going ob much it’s because he’s very wild.

 

 

Its not penalizing long guys more. It’s just preventing long guys from blowing the ball over every dogleg and trying to hit every short green. You don’t realize the pace of play issue that could also cause.

 

Say i I have a 320 yard par 4 with OB both sides. I’m probably hitting an iron off the tee today. Now take stroke and distance away , I’ll probably try to hit it up around the green , worst case is I flare it and can drop from 30-60 yards around the green ( where it goes out ) so you’ve left me laying 2 hitting 3 with a chance to stick a lob wedge and make par. Otherwise today I’m on the tee hitting 3. Huge huge huge difference in how it makes me play the game. Are you going to be happy waiting behind me while I wait for short hope greens to clear and each group to get through a dogleg so I can try to cut a corner ? Nope.

[LICC]

In your hypothetical, if you hit it OB you probably didn’t get your normal distance. You drastically pulled, hooked, or sliced it. So if you normally hit it 260-290 you probably lost 30-40 yards at the OB point. You also would drop within 2 club lengths from that OB point. So you are hitting your 3rd on a short par 4 from 90 out at a bad angle to the green. That seems like enough disincentive to make you think what club to hit off the tee

One bad swing, one penalty. Eminently fair.

[bladehunter]

Just depend on course for that one. My home course is super tight tree lined. So for me OB means i missed the fairway and got a bad hop. OB is often less than 20 yards off the fairway.

[davep043]

Here's my problem with @LICC and the OB penalty. Every time someone suggests that different levels of "sin" deserve different levels of penalty, he rejects that idea. That idea forms the basis for making some penalties one stroke, while others receive the General Penalty. That idea is a significant part of the logic behind the stroke and distance penalty. Missing the 100+ acres that we are given on which to play golf is considered a bigger transgression than many others, so the penalty is steeper. That's a very logical value judgement, but it is admittedly a value judgement. We have different values, different judgement. Its fair to disagree with the judgement, its inane to say there's absolutely no logic behind it.

[LICC]

And when that has been brought up, I’ve pointed out the illogical inconsistency of doubly penalizing OB but not a ball that ends up in a bottom of a pond.

[davep043]

A pond is within the 100 acres or more that is devoted to golf. OB is NOT within those acres. Different locations, different definitions, different infractions, yield different penalties.

[LICC]

Curious question- are there any other rules that give a double penalty for bad execution of a shot? I can see double penalties for intentional cheating types of activities or failing to do what you are supposed to do (E.g., putting into another ball at rest that you should have asked to mark before your stroke). But a double penalty for just not executing a good swing- is that anyplace else in the rules?

[LICC]

Yes but that in itself doesn’t give a reason why one is penalized differently. The bottom of a pond is not a playable area for hitting a golf shot either.

[raynorfan1]

Lost ball not out of bounds is also penalized as stroke and distance.

I think you need to think about the history of the game to understand why a ball in a water hazard is treated differently than one OB. On Links courses - which, whether you like it or not, is where the rules were developed - water hazards usually take the form of a channeled stream (think the Swilcan Burn at TOC). You didn't "lose" a ball in these hazards. The ball went in and you plucked it out.

Balls were expensive and it made sense for the penalty for losing one (whether OB or on course) to be more severe than for hitting into a penalty area.

[LICC]

But S&D penalties were not the historical norm. The rule changed back an forth decades ago.

[rogolf]

Below is a history of Rules for lost ball and out of bounds. After some experimentation, the ruling bodies have settled on stroke and distance as the appropriate procedure.Out of Bounds

The term out of bounds was first defined in 1886 Royal Isle of Wight, with a penalty of stroke and distance. R&A 1899 defined it as being outside the recognised boundaries of the course; penalty distance only.1908 Redefined as all ground on which play is prohibited. Penalty distance only still, but may be changed to stroke and distance by local rule for both forms of play. Also, a ball out of bounds may be treated as lost by local rule, (i.e. lost hole in match play). This change was not adopted by the USGA until 1915, although the local rule adjustment was not incorporated.1920 Stroke and distance, but now the penalty stroke may be remitted by local rule.1947 USGA and 1950 R&A. Distance only, and no provision for change by a local rule.1952 Stroke and distance.

1960 USGA experimentally changed to distance only.

1961 USGA back to stroke and distance. in addition, the USGA allowed an alternative procedure of stroke only - dropping a ball within two club lengths of where the ball went out of bounds on courses where the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe".

1964 USGA allowed a local rule to be adopted which allowed a stroke-only option if it was felt that stroke and distance would be "'unduly severe."

The player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option.

Rescinded in 1968.

From the introduction of out of bounds, a ball was out of bounds when the greater part of it lay out of bounds. From 1950, all the ball has to be out.

When out of bounds is defined by a line, the line was in bounds until 1954.Lost

Although the penalty for a lost ball is the same now as in the oldest written Rules of 1744, there have been a few changes in the interim.

St Andrews 1754 and Edinburgh Burgess 1773 also used stroke and distance, but in the revised Leith code of 1775, the rule was changed to stroke only, and a player dropped a ball where he judged the original was lost.1812 St Andrews maintained the stroke and distance penalty, but now allows a player to tee his ball.

1839 Honourable Company adopted the 1829 St Andrews rules, and thus inherited the stroke and distance penalty.

1842 St Andrews changed to three strokes and distance! Rescinded in 1846.1891 Separate procedures for match and stroke play. In stroke play, stroke and distance unchanged, but for match play a lost ball meant a lost hole (see below).1902 Stroke and distance, ball to be teed.1920 Stroke and distance in both forms of play. Ball must now be dropped if not played from the tee.1950 R&A changes penalty to distance only.1952 Back to Stroke and distance.1956 Ball may be declared lost by player. This option removed in 1964.

1960 USGA Distance only. Rescinded 1961.1972 ball may be abandoned as lost without searching. Option Removed 1976.

The five minute time limit for searching for a lost ball was introduced by the Aberdeen Golfers in 1783. The same time limit was used by Musselburgh 1834.

1842 St Andrews introduced a limit of 5 mins, and removed it in 1846 (as part of 3 strokes and distance rule mentioned above).1882 St Andrews reintroduced a time limit - lost if not found within 10 mins; reduced to 5 mins in 1891. Royal Isle of Wight 1886 also introduced a limit of 5 minutes.

Five minutes remained as the general time limit until the universal code of 1899 was introduced, and remained unchanged until 2019.

Up to 1956 the definition of a lost ball was that it was not found within five minutes of searching. In 1956 the ball was either lost after five minutes or the player could declare the ball lost.1964 definition was five minutes search or if the player put another ball in play. Players could no longer declare a ball lost.1972 : 5 minutes search, if the player puts another ball into play, or if the player plays a provisional ball nearer hole than the original was likely to be, or if the player abandons the ball1976 : 5 minutes search, if the player puts another ball into play, or if the player plays a provisional ball nearer hole than the original was likely to be.

[Sawgrass]

Is a two stoke penalty a "double penalty" in your lexicon? If so, making a bad putt from the green in stroke play and thereby hitting another ball at rest on the putting green is an example.

 

BTW, your continued arguments using the idea of logic as your weapon is unreasonable. One can say that the whole game is illogical if one wants: how does hitting a ball away from you and then chasing it only to do the same thing all over again make any sense? The true test is whether it's fun. To me, having different levels of penalty for different issues is fun and adds great interest to the game. And within the construct of my affection for this variance, things are completely logical.

[Hawkeye77]

It is one penalty, the penalty is two strokes.

[LICC]

Stroke AND distance. Two penalties.

[rogolf]

Use the Model Local Rule for a lost ball or out of bounds - drop in the fairway with a penalty of two strokes then it's only one penalty, as is stroke and distance - single breach, single penalty.

[LICC]

You’re getting into silly semantics. Call it two penalties or a two stroke penalty. Either way it is irrational and unfair.

[davep043]

How many rules are like this, in that there's a specific penalty (one stroke or two), and you are required to play the next shot from a specific location? Is every one of these TWO penalties, or are they all penalties with two elements? Its seems to me that these "two-element" penalties are pretty common, and pretty damn logical.

[rogolf]

"Silly semantics"? That is what I would call suggesting that "stroke and distance" is a double penalty.

[LICC]

Stroke AND distance. Stroke, one penalty- You have to add a stroke to the one you just made. Distance, another penalty- you can’t go to the point where the ball went OB. You have to hit again from where you made the first swing. Therefore, you are doubly penalized.

[rogolf]

Imo, that's semantics. "Stroke and distance" describes what you must do in certain circumstances - it's the price you pay.

[Newby]

And only penalised once if you keep it on the course but the ball finishes in a penalty area.

If you can't even keep it on the course you deserve another penalty.

[LICC]

Why? You have no good reason. Is hitting it to the bottom of a pond better than one foot past a white stake?

[Halebopp]

LICC hasn't been able to provide a single logical reason why a player shouldn't be penalized for hitting the ball off the course and not required to try again from the same spot until the player actually manages to keep the ball on the designated playing field.

 

Also, you are never penalized for hitting a ball into a penalty area but if you can't or don't want to play the ball as it lies, you are allowed to drop a ball to another spot away from the trouble and continue playing the round from there at the cost of one stroke, just like anywhere else on the golf course.

[Shilgy]

Being as you are so wise I am certain you already know this but.....what really is the difference between your scenario and stroke and distance? If he “drops for unplayable and then chips out lying 3 how is that different from going back to the tee for his unplayable and hitting his second tee shot to the same place? Based on your previous assertions shouldn’t the player be able to drop it out of the woods for his unplayable drop? Seems odd that you would make the guy in the woods have a more severe penalty than the guy ob you have presented in this thread.

 

Where is the logic in that???

[rogolf]

The bottom of the pond is still on the course as defined by the Committee. Out of bounds is off the course. If a football (sorry UK guys) catches a pass out of bounds, it doesn't count - they lose the catch, the down and the distance (the distance was only a potential anyways, since, according to the Rules, it was never really gained).

[LICC]

Again, so what? It is not part of the playable area of the course as designed. Just saying OB is not part of the property isn’t a reason for a double penalty, which it wasn’t for the majority of the first 60 years of the rules.

[Hawkeye77]

You guys can have him!