What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

Yes, and as @LeoLeo99 said above, this is a discussion about what rules people think should be changed. People responding with saying this is how the rule is so just accept it is contrary to the basis of the discussion.
If you can’t point out any other rule that doubly penalizes poor execution rather than bad intent or carelessness, then you don’t have a good argument that distance penalties are logical due to being similar to other rules.

[Hawkeye77]

No, you've turned it into page after repetitive page of trolling an issue that was beaten to death several days ago.

[sui generis]

Careful, Hawkeye, you'll catapult him back to his other troll obsession, how La-Z-Boy/TV referees know more than the boys in situ. Or, egads, he'll launch into divot holes or . . . .

[bladehunter]

Yes. Perfectly on topic. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And this thread perfectly illustrates that.

[Vindog]

You have it backwards. Find a reference that states one swing deserves only one penalty, otherwise your change to the rule isn't logical or valid. I don't have any problem with people thinking that they could change a rule or that they don't like a rule, but your assertion that it isn't logical is wrong, and your insistence that you deserve an explation against an irrelevant point is not discussion. It's grandstanding.

[Londoner]

Its the hope that kills you. ?

[Newby]

Would it satisfy your logic if a penalty area gave rise to stroke and distance?

[LeoLeo99]

I've been on this site for a few years and never will I understand the emotional attachment some folks have to the rules of golf.

[LICC]

It would reduce the logical inconsistency. I still would consider it wrong in that one bad swing should result in one penalty rather than two.

[LICC]

You are incapable of giving any reasonable explanation why one bad swing should be penalized twice.

[davep043]

So what is your proposal? You're big on saying that the rules for OB have changed over the years. Would you accept the one that has been tried (and subsequently rejected)? That wasn't what you've said you want, the most common alternate rule was distance only. You hit #2 from the tee. Or do you want to guess where the ball went OB, and drop it there? Or maybe you want to pick a convenient place on the path of the ball and drop it there? What's your solution?

I'll suggest one option (please don't crucify me, y'all). We can treat the OB line as if its a YELLOW penalty area. You can establish a reference point that keeps the spot where the ball went OB between the RP and the hole, and drop within 1 clublength. If there's no acceptable RP in the General Area, you take stroke and distance. That treats it exactly like a yellow penalty area.

Oh, that reminds me, is a Yellow penalty area a "double penalty? If I carry 200 yards of lake, land on the far side, and the ball rolls back, I have to drop behind the lake. I get a stroke penalty, and lose 200 yards of distance. Shouldn't we drop it on the far side, where the ball entered the Penalty Area?

[KevCarter]

I think we if we go there it's again more penal to lose a ball on the course than hitting it off the planet. I think a change would have to also include a change to the lost ball penalty. I think it's fine the way it is. The new local rule takes care of the pace of play argument, and my opinion is 2 strokes is appropriate for hitting it off the course. I'll agree to disagree with LICC. I'm not interested in debate and will just post my opinion just once. I don't think either side is being swayed...

[davep043]

Yeah, I know, but its too cold to play golf this afternoon here, so I'm stuck in front of the computer. I think the current rule is appropriate (and logical), I'm just trying to change the parameters of the discussion a little.

[LICC]

I would treat OB just like a pond. Drop at the line it crossed over with one penalty stroke.

[Newby]

It is undeniably illogical. The number of posts tells us undeniaby that that statement is not true.

[sui generis]

Nor, do we understand your disdain for the Rules.

More mysteriously, why do you even hang around here? Just to be mischievous?

[davep043]

so like a yellow penalty area, as I suggest?

[isaacbm]

Well, to me this is reasonable. But only because somebody basically thinks that the game is too hard and wants there to be less of a penalty for the most severe infraction. That’s fine.

I just think the reason you want that is simply because you want it. Has nothing to do with logic. It’s quite logical to make the rules of the game state that if you hit it one place you get a more severe penalty than if you hit it another.

 

Most people are just struggling with the fact that you are defining that as illogical. It’s 100% fine if you don’t like it. That’s the premise of the thread. Your reasons for saying that it’s illogical are what most people are disagreeing with. It’s like you fundamentally do not understand what the word logical means. Or youre just being difficult.

Which is also you’re right.

[Londoner]

That's called cheating.

[LICC]

Yes. Or red for a lateral OB.

[LICC]

The illogical part is treating OB differently than a ball lost in a water hazard.

[LICC]

Not if the rule was changed

[Londoner]

But its not.

Either play Golf by the rules or some other game you've made up.

[davep043]

Its your rule, make up your mind. I specifically suggested a Yellow PA, is that OK?

[LICC]

You are not following. This discussion is not about how we play differently from current rules. It is what rules we would change.

[LICC]

Like I said, treat it the same as water hazards- some are yellow stake and some are red stake. Presumed yellow unless marked red.

[davep043]

OK, we've agreed on yellow penalty area. So under the rules, being consistent, your reference point must be in the General Area. If there is no acceptable reference point, your only other option is to take stroke and distance. How many instances can you find a Reference Point that both keeps the point where the ball crossed the line between the RP and the hole, and is also in the General Area, that is to say, in bounds? I think you'll find that, treating OB exactly the same as a yellow penalty area, you'll end up taking stroke and distance in something over 90% of all situations.

[LICC]

Not if lateral OB is marked red, like I said.

[davep043]

So you've ignored my proposition, which specifically said Yellow. Enough of this nonsense.

[Halebopp]

So you're fine with effective Stroke & Distance penalties? Using your logic, that's completely illogical because there shouldn't be "two" penalties for a single bad swing. How are you going to fix that?