What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

A ball at the bottom of a pond can't be played where it lies either. Nor certain wooded areas that are on the property that are inaccessible. Sorry, but saying a swing should be doubly penalized because a ball went off property, just because, is not a strong justification.

[rogolf]

Stop the fodder - agree to disagree. There won't be a winner here.

Two things not the same are different.

[CaseyC]

additional excerpt:

 

To date, our conclusion has been that it is inappropriate to allow a fundamentally different relief procedure for a ball that is out of bounds for the following reasons:

 

·      Out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and this would be undermined if players could hit towards out of bounds with less concern for the consequences;

·      There are sometimes safety reasons to avoid having players play towards out of bounds (such as balls possibly ending up on roads or adjacent properties), such that out of bounds should not be treated as just another obstacle from which relief is allowed; and

 

 

·    It is fundamentally a different thing to hit a ball outside the boundaries of the course than to hit it on the course and need relief.

[LICC]

1st point- Having to take one penalty instead of two would not eliminate a golfer's concern for the consequences of hitting OB

2nd point- There are safety reasons hitting on holes that are right up against each other, or toward a green that has a nearby tee box.

3rd point- No, it's not, not when it comes to fairly scoring a round

This paper indicates how out-of-touch is the USGA.

[davep043]

The preponderance of opinions within this thread, and your other thread beating this same issue to death, might be an indication of how out of touch YOU are with the remainder of the serious golfing world. You can disagree with the USGA, with the R&A, and with the majority of serious golfers. It doesn't make you any more logical than any of them, it just means you disagree.

[LICC]

I don't mind having a different opinion than some people here. I notice you said "serious" golfers. So the millions of middle class golfers who play every week at their local muni who overwhelmingly ignore this rule are just a bunch of jokers to you? Only private club members should be taken seriously? If you were able to poll the millions of people who golf regularly in the US, my guess is your opinion about this rule would be in the small minority.

And I back my opinion with reasonable and logical argument. The best I get from the side that favors S&D is to say "off the property" should be penalized more but with no rationale why, and your grudging admittance that the rules are inconsistent but you seem to think that is fine.

[Newby]

I don't believe that the millions of middle class golfers who play every week at their local muni (in the US) who overwhelmingly ignore this rule are just a bunch of jokers. I would suggest that S&D (and provisionals) are ignored because of pace of play issues on those courses.

But have you got any evidence that there are millions who support your view? They would seem not to have made their views known to the USGA or R&A.

 

[davep043]

I have no data to suggest that a preponderance of public-course players DO (or don't) ignore the stroke and distance penalties, I'm guessing nobody else does either. And I'm sure there are significant numbers of members of private clubs who ignore those rules. But I believe its inappropriate to change the rules simply because some players ignore them. This would be akin to increasing the speed limits on highways by 15 or 20 mph, simply because that's how fast some people drive. And the same players who ignore S&D are likely to be the same players who roll balls from divots, take free drops away from roots, ground their clubs in bunkers, and in general play golf in any way they see fit. That group of players, the willful rule-breakers, doesn't really figure in my evaluation of what the rules should be.

[HatsForBats]

LICC Said: And I back my opinion with reasonable and logical argument. The best I get from the side that favors S&D is to say "off the property" should be penalized more but with no rationale why, and your grudging admittance that the rules are inconsistent but you seem to think that is fine.

Two players of very similar ability with player A giving player B 1 stroke for 18 holes. On the number 1 handicap hole Player A makes 4 good shots for a par. Player B knocks their ball OB on the tee shot, drops within 2 club lengths for 1-stroke, gets the approach near the green, chips on and makes a putt. The hole is tied. In that scenario I tend to believe Player B should not have tied Player A. For me it is as simple as that having played in a league where they used to play the drop and penalty as you suggest. Thankfully with the new Optional Rule they are now hitting 4, albeit from the fairway, after popping one OB.

 

For the most part I think poor course design/layout is more of the issue. I just try to avoid those courses that are littered with OB without giving players a reasonable chance to bail. Like the league course which I almost never play outside of league even though it is so close I could walk to the course. I continue to play in the league because I like the people I play with there.

 

I think many golfers would agree with you simply for the fact that it is an advantage for them (ie. higher handicaps would seem to benefit more if this were the case and the majority of golfers are higher handicappers).

 

 

 

[Vindog]

 

It has been mentioned why “off the property,” or lost, is significant, and why it is penalized as such. Yet “off the property” is not what the rationale hinges on. It’s only ONE scenario.

 

 

[LICC]

I'm not saying the rule should be changed because lots of players ignore it. I brought that up because you implied that my opinion was a minority one and the vast majority disagreed with me. In actuality, the majority of the golfing world (and Gene Sarazen!) likely agrees with me and in any event does not abide by the S&D rule when keeping score. As for the other activities you mentioned, I wouldn't correlate the two, at least with what I regularly see.

[davep043]

I see, you have special insight, and the majority of players agree with you. Based on.....? You've gone beyond implication, you've stated as fact that muni golfers overwhelmingly ignore the S&D rule. Please back that up with something beyond your personal experience. Similarly, please back up your contention that the majority of the golfing world agrees with you, and that the majority of the golfing world ignores S&D when keeping score.

[LICC]

In your scenario, why is that a problem? Player B made a very good approach shot and a great chip or putt to go up and down, on presumably the hardest hole on the course. He played from his OB drop in 3 on the hardest hole. His bad tee shot stopped him from winning the hole even with his handicap stroke given. Seems fair to me.

[rogolf]

Sounds like it's more about results (score) than any other logic? The end (lower score) is justifying the means (ignoring the Rules).

[Shilgy]

Agreed. I don’t understand why he seems to accept (reluctantly) the Model local rule allowing a drop in the fairway with two strokes added but

can’t stand stroke and distance. It gives the same result-approximately.

[LICC]

I never said I agreed with the two-stroke local rule penalty.

[Vindog]

Of course it is.

[Shilgy]

My suggestion then would be get a job at the USGA so you can lower everyone’s scores by being more lenient with penalties. Or why have penalties at all?

If you did not intend to hit the ball in the water why a double penalty for that? $4 for a new ball and a penalty stroke? How unfair!

[LICC]

Do you not know that hitting a ball into the water is not a double penalty, as hitting a ball OB is?

[James the Hogan Fan]

A more administrative rule I might like to see changed would be an addition to the tune of:

"When in stroke play, the committee has grouped multiple competitors together, the committee may allow the group to keep one score card upon which the scores of each player are kept. At the conclusion of the round, each player in the group must validate and sign the card before it is returned to the committee."

In 3 man groups (which I find myself in often) it is impossible to just switch cards and some odd passing around must take place. ("I record Bob's score but report my own score to Joe") Since the whole group must come together anyway, why not simplify? This also serves as a paper-saver.

[CaseyC]

Into a yellow hazard, there can be a "distance" component to the penalty...

[strug'-a-ling]

I forgot if I answered this already. My Ping DLX bag has fourteen club dividers AND a putter well.

 

I'd like the fact that each slot is filled to become conforming.

[Vindog]

As much of a penalty as the player wishes, keeping all the points in a line of course.

But it can result in a player having no other option than to proceed under S&D

[davep043]

And this particular rule truly is arbitrary. Sure, when players were carrying 25 or 30 different clubs, that was too many, but what really IS the right number? For better or worse, I just don't see this one being revised any time soon. Besides, if you have another club, where will you put your ball retriever?

[Hawkeye77]

Not if they are the same as they are not the same in reference to something else.

 

But I'm not one to argue . . .

 

[sdandrea]

Remember, it is STILL a new ball!

[Hawkeye77]

Geometric logic no doubt.

 

 

[sdandrea]

I think putts should only count as a half stroke, after all, they aren't full swings.

[Sean2]

I still find the penalty egregious. That said, I abide by the rule and accept it.

What first got me thinking about this rule was during a club championship a few years ago. One of the fellows I was playing with hit four tee shots OB on a par 5. Had the penalty been treated as a lateral he probably would have walked off with a 6, maybe even a 5. Instead he walked off with an 11, if memory serves. I felt bad for the guy. It was the first day of competition, and only the 5th hole. His tournament was over.

On a side note, we spent the allotted amount of time looking for his first two OB shots. By the time he hit one in play there was quite a back-up...there were two groups waiting to tee off and no one in site in front of us. The groups on the tee where none too pleased. Had his first tee shot been takes as a lateral, we would have been long gone before the next group got to the 5th tee.

 

[HatsForBats]

It is a problem because it allows the player getting a stroke to get away with a terrible shot and still have a very good chance of tying the hole when the player not getting a shot plays the hole very well. Allowing the player who is getting a stroke to get away with a poor shot/choice (flub, water hazard, sand etc.). , rather than a terrible shot (OB), is much more equitable in my opinion. In general hitting the ball OB usually requires a terrible shot and should be penalized more severely than just a poor shot or choice.