What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Newby]

My intended implication was that 'within the confines' meant on the course as defined by the rules of the particular sport.

Presumably a base ball that hits the ground cannot be caught.

Doubly penalized is not an appropriate term. On course/off course breaches are treated differently. Any penalty is simply different.

[LICC]

Stroke and distance is a double penalty. Stroke penalty. Distance penalty. A ball goes out of bounds in other sports, two penalties are not applied.

[CaseyC]

In baseball, if you hit a fould ball, it is a strike and you are still at the plate., you don't get to go to the nearest base.

If you catch a bll out of bounds in American football, you don't get the ball near where it was caught. You loose the down and play from the previous spot..;

[Sawgrass]

In stroke play, a player putts his ball lying on the putting green about 20' away from the hole. As the slow, down-hill putt is about to come to rest just right of the hole, his partner (or the player himself if he's quick) deliberately deflects the moving ball closer to the hole. 2sp for a 11.2b violation, and 11.2c(2) dictates the ball must be replaced on its previous spot.

Two strokes plus loss of distance! (That sound you hear is LICC's head exploding.)

[LICC]

American football goes against your position. If on 1st down you throw a ball out of bounds, you go to the previous spot and play 2nd down. You don't get a double penalty and lose a down and are now playing 3rd down.

[LICC]

Already discussed. Irrelevant point. What you describe is a deliberate violation. Intentional rule violations warrant harsher penalties than simple bad execution.

[Sawgrass]

Yes, intentional rules violations require harsh penalties, as does failing to keep your ball on the course.

[davep043]

Really, the telling thing is that the Ruling bodies HAVE reviewed this rule repeatedly. The have experimented semi-recently (60 years ago), and found that the distance-only penalty did not accomplish the desired results. These are people with substantial knowledge of the history of the rules, of the principles that are the basis for the rules, and who evaluated the effects of the "distance-only" experiment and found them lacking. As I've said before (and nobody has quibbled), every one of these rules has two parts, the penalty stroke, and the defined area from which to continue play. Nobody has suggested that the "distance" portion of the yellow penalty area relief is a second penalty, even though you can be forced to give up 100 or even 200 yards from where the ball last crossed the boundary. That's because the required relief location is an integral part of the penalty.

After a major review over the past few years, they Ruling Bodies have specifically affirmed that stroke-and-distance is the appropriate result for both a ball lost outside of a penalty area, and for a ball out of bounds. You may not like the severity of the penalty, that's what many of the quotes indicate, but its the right thing to do. It maintains an appropriate hierarchy of penalty severity among the four basic penalty situations where you cannot play your original ball. And before anyone says it, I'm not defending this rule simply rule because its a rule, I believe it maintains the right order of severity of the penalties.

[CaseyC]

Yes, you loose the distance of the ball thrown out of bounds and the down. You are charged a down (stroke) and play from the previous spot (distance). You don't get to play from the spot the ball went out of bounds

[LICC]

You are not charged an extra down. You played your down, didn't advance the ball, so you go back to your spot and play your next down.

[LICC]

One does not follow the other. Intentional cheating is a more harmful act than unintentional bad execution. If your argument has devolved to equating a ball going OB to intentional cheating, you don't have a strong argument.

[CaseyC]

in golf you don't have to worry about being called "out" or turning over the ball for your opponent to play

[LICC]

The ruling bodies have screwed up lots of rules over the years. Was the shoulder drop so wonderful for all these years but all of a sudden was a problem so they changed it? Was requiring the removal of the flagstick so wonderful for all these years but all of a sudden became a problem so they changed the rule? These are the same people that have botched how many things at US Opens in recent years? Deferring to the geniuses of the ruling bodies isn't carrying much water with me.

[Sawgrass]

Very logical.

[Shilgy]

Do you watch the NFL? Some penalties are 5 yards...some are twice that at 10 yards....gasp some are three times that at 15 yards....and, oh how illogical.....some are almost unlimited (defensive pass interference is a spot foul).

Hockey has varying penalties for infractions as well.

 

I do believe you tend to like to create chaos and argue.

 

Merry Christmas to all. Hope your holidays are filled with good family cheer.

 

 

[LeoLeo99]

Going OB is treated as a lateral hazard in soccer. You throw the ball in from where it went OB. You don't lose the distance and go back to where the ball was last touched.

 

In football, if you go out of bounds with the ball, you keep the distance and there is no penalty for going OB. It's just an incomplete pass if it's not caught in bounds. Same as an incomplete pass anywhere else on the field.

I fear this is a bad analogy to compare golf to other sports. Especially football.

[Sawgrass]

Fortunately it isn't I who needs an argument, I've already got my preference legislated. As for you, hitting your ball off the course is bad. Try not to do it.

[CaseyC]

In soccer, you loose posession for going OB. What would bethe equivalent in golf? Loss of hole in match play?

[davep043]

So that's your reasoning now, THIS rule is wrong because other rules have evolved over the years? And these evolutions are "botches? To my mind, they are the effect of continuing review, and evolution of the game. The drop rule in particular was revised as part of a larger group of changes, intended to limit the distance between a ball's original location, and where you eventually played your next shot from. That's in no way a "botch". The flagstick change, similarly, had a specific purpose. As to the US Open issues, you may not realize it, but the people who enforce rules during tournaments are not the same people who review and write the rules.

Actually, looking back a the rule changes, I can see only one that was really "botched", one that required correction within a year. It was changed in 1960, and quickly reversed in 1961, clearly a "botch" I don't think they'll make the same mistake any time soon.

Oh, you STILL have yet to respond to this bit:

"As I've said before (and nobody has quibbled), every one of these rules has two parts, the penalty stroke, and the defined area from which to continue play. Nobody has suggested that the "distance" portion of the yellow penalty area relief is a second penalty, even though you can be forced to give up 100 or even 200 yards from where the ball last crossed the boundary. That's because the required relief location is an integral part of the penalty."

[LICC]

Add Bernard Darwin to the list of those who agree with me. From Lorne Smith: "Darwin was Captain of the Royal and Ancient GC 1934-35 and chairman of the R&A’s Rules of Golf Committee that brought forth in 1950 the first rule changes since 1934, including the speeding up of play by a reversion to a penalty of only ‘distance’ rather than ‘stroke and distance’ for a ball lost or out of bounds, sadly overturned two years later to the great detriment of the recreational game of nowadays."

From David Gould: "No less an eminence than Bernard Darwin, grandson of the scientist Charles Darwin and Britain’s finest golf writer, condemned stroke-and-distance for lost balls and and balls out of bounds. Darwin served as chairman of the R&A rules committee during the Yalta-like convocation that unified American and British rules. Unification took place in 1952, and Darwin seized on the occasion to suggest that distance alone be the penalty for a lost ball, a ball out of bounds–even for a ball in an unplayable lie. When a player’s drive went out of bounds or was lost, the player could return to the place whence he struck it, drop a ball and be lying one, playing his second."

[LICC]

The physics of dropping a golf ball has not "evolved" over the last 100 years. Nor has the presence of flagsticks in the holes.

[Vindog]

I agree to no such thing no matter how you word it, however you try to twist it. The answer is unequivocally “no”

 

 

 

 

 

[Sawgrass]

None of the people you've quoted "agree with you." They simply prefer to abolish the S&D penalty as you do. Most anyone would grant you the right to your preference, but you go astray with the insistence that logic demands the abolishment of S&D.

[davep043]

You're 100% right. So when the Rulemakers decided to limit the distance the ball could be relocated from its original position, they changed the Relief Area procedures, and they adopted a drop method that would further limit the roll of the ball. Considering the specific goal, its a pretty solid combination of rule changes. The flagstick change was associated primarily with pace of play, and we've seen a lot of folks who have experienced the desired effect, an improvement in the pace of play. Right now, these seem to have succeeded in attaining the desired effect.

No response to the other issues?

[LICC]

I don't fully understand your scenario regarding the yellow stake. You have a pond that is directly in line with your intended shot that you have to carry. You hit the ball into the pond. You find the point where the ball crossed from land to over the water, and you take the line from that point to the hole, extending back, and you drop anywhere on that line. So you can get the benefit of all the distance that you hit the ball up to the point of the water. What is the question you are posing?

[LICC]

So you are disagreeing with yourself now. Got it ...

[LeoLeo99]

You get a penalty shot in golf for going OB. It's hard to talk equivalents because golf is so different than other ball sports. That's why I said it's a poor idea to draw analogies to golf and other sports.

[LICC]

For decades the rules were in place, and the ruling bodies reviewed how the rules can be changed for the better the game, and didn't hold to existing rules just because they have been in place for decades. I propose they do the same for stroke and distance penalties, which actually have a history of often being revised.

[Vindog]

I’ll repeat myself. No matter how you word it. No matter how you try to twist it (you are as predictable as they come) the answer is unequivocally “no”

 

 

[LICC]

Your exact words: "It would be more congruent with the spirit of that particular rule to make unplayable lies in PA's (bottom of a pond) S&D."

You are now disagreeing with yourself. Duly noted.