What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[nsxguy]

Why should "similar" situation be treated the same ? That's what you're asking for. Sure they're "similar" but they're NOT the same.

The obvious difference where the Penalty Area is concerned is the PA is ON the course. For OB the ball is OFF the course. Why should they be treated the same ? They're NOT the same. But then you already know that.

Should 1st degree murder and manslaughter be punished the same ? They're similar but yet not punished the same.

 

I had a lot more but it's easy to see you'll just bring up more nonsense - you've been doing it for a while now. So I'll take my own suggestion and just ignore you from this point on. Don't like the Rules, don't play.

 

BTW, copying and pasting published information on another site without permission is copyright infringement and is punishable by law. May I assume you got permission from the author ? If not, what should YOUR punishment be ? LMAO

 

[LICC]

Stop trying to play lawyer when you don’t know what you’re talking about. And I quoted the USGA book, so go freak out on them about their stated principles.

[nsxguy]

LOL. Classic.

Don't go away mad son, just go away,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, Fair Use laws define (a bit vaguely) the circumstances under which you can copy/paste portions of a copyrighted work without penalty.

dave

 

[davep043]

@LICC says:
"The most common reason given in the book to justify the severity of the penalty is to avoid a golfer just declaring a bad shot as unplayable and hitting again from the original spot, thus bettering his position than going to where he hit the ball. This to me is so misguided it is perplexing. It accepts a person disingenuously declaring a ball unplayable and imposes illogical penalties to counter it. Instead, the rules should only allow a ball to be deemed unplayable if the conditions actually deny the ability to safely strike the ball."
There's nothing disingenuous about using the rules to your advantage. It happens all the time, and its an indication that someone is smart enough to learn and understand the rules. This is why its important to understand the principles before writing the rules. Its inappropriate to allow a player an "out" from a poor shot based on the rules, its appropriate to make the penalty severe enough that a player will generally want to play that poor shot if its at all possible.
And perhaps you didn't read (or understand?) the entire discussion. In general (not always), there are no OB stakes in the center of the fairway, or crossing a fairway, while it is very common to have a water feature in the direct line of play. For that reason, because it is extremely common to have a penalty area in the direct line of play, that relief from a penalty area is different from OB. Tufts doesn't really like the idea that hazards are treated differently from any other lost ball situation, but he understands the reasoning.

[LICC]

“Rule 19 - Unplayable BallPurpose of Rule: Rule 19 covers the player’s several relief options for an unplayable ball.”
“1.2 Standards of Player ConductAll players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by:
Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.”@davep043 I’m sorry but you are way off here. The rule uses the word “unplayable”. Words have meaning. “Acting with integrity” has meaning. If we were playing a match and you chose to benefit yourself by declaring a perfectly playable ball as unplayable then I wouldn’t want to play with you again. That is disingenuous. And falling back on principles to defend disingenuous application of a rule, to further defend illogical rules, is flawed.

[Londoner]

I missed a 4 footer last week. Therefore the hole should be bigger.

[LICC]

As you have to take a one-stroke penalty for the drop for an unplayable, no matter where you drop it (within two club lengths or at the original spot), how could someone better their position by declaring a ball unplayable when it really isn’t?

[Sawgrass]

Yes, words do have meaning, including the 19.1 words that say that the player may decide "to TREAT his or her ball as unplayable." (Emphasis, mine.)

And I must tell you that if I chose to define my ball as unplayable anywhere other than in a penalty area, and you objected, I'd first laugh at you and then be pleased you didn't want to play again. This pretense of trying to make this simple application of rule 19 an issue of integrity is the act that's truly disingenuous.

[DaveLeeNC]

There are many situations where 2 CL's is a better place than where you could actually hit the ball.

dave

[LICC]

19.1 Player May Decide to Take Unplayable Ball Relief Anywhere Except Penalty AreaA player is the only person who may decide to treat his or her ball as unplayable by taking penalty relief under Rule 19.2 or 19.3.

That is the exact wording. The rule goes to who can decide. I don’t read this as advocating taking unplayable ball relief for a ball that is playable.

If we were playing and you did this. I wouldn’t object, I just wouldn’t play with you again.

And to correct another statement you made, you can’t take unplayable ball relief in a penalty area.

[LICC]

Yes, that is what I am saying. A player doesn’t have a situation where declaring a playable ball as unplayable would be better, as long as a one-stroke penalty is applied. So using that as a basis for inconsistent application of penalties in the rules doesn’t make sense.

[LeoLeo99]

The common example given is thus:

A 2 foot severe down hill putt. You hit it too firm and miss the hole and the ball rolls down the hill and off the green into thick rough. It would be a very difficult show to hit it close to the hole from this position. You can take stroke and distance penalty. Add a penalty stroke and place the ball 2 feet from the hole and try the putt again. That is legal under the rules and a smart play. Maybe not in the spirit of golf but legal and accepted none the less.

[DaveLeeNC]

I guess that I will have to admit that I have no idea what you are saying.

dave

[KevCarter]

"And to correct another statement you made, you can’t take unplayable ball relief in a penalty area."

What part of Sawgrass' post were you unable to comprehend?

[LICC]

I wouldn’t consider that to be a move of integrity or in the spirit of the game. It is also easily addressed- don’t allow original spot relief on the green.

[Sawgrass]

Nicely done. Let's see what happens . . .

[HitEmTrue]

Your new rule would create the situation. We’ve been over this.

Hit the ball off the fairway to an unplayable spot, where it’s going to take TWO shots to get back to fairway. One penalty stroke relief, and one risky shot through the trees.

Abandoning that ball and hitting second shot from tee becomes much more attractive.

Example given was in this years Solheim cup Took two might wacks to get back to fairway from deep rough. Reteeing (or not looking for original and playing the provisional already in the fairway) would have saved a stroke under your rule.

It also removes risk from the original shots themselves, knowing that if you take a risky line of play and fail, you get a redo attempt with one less shot added to your score.

The continuity of finding the ball and playing it becomes broken with your proposal.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

This comment of yours reveals (again) how little you understand of this game of golf.

As someone already put it: don't get mad, get lost. Well, in other words but I guess the idea is clear...

[Mr. Bean]

Don't hold your breath... for an intelligent response

[LICC]

The only justification you have is this far reaching unlikely scenario of being in some position that requires two shots just to get back to the fairway. Sorry, that is outright silly. The Solheim Cup did not require two shots to get back to the fairway. That was execution, not position. That this is the scenario you came up with shows you don’t have a good argument.

[HitEmTrue]

The commentator predicted that getting back to the fairway would be difficult. Unplayable lie didn’t have any better options. Were you watching?

I guess Mickelson had know idea what he was doing when he went back to the tee after his ball was found in the canyon at Torrey Pines.

These aren’t contrived or weird scenarios. I play at some places where it would be much better to NOT find a golf ball under your proposed rule for lost ball (distance only, no stroke).

[Londoner]

You think HE is being silly?

[Mr. Bean]

Dearest LICC,

at this point it is more than clear that no other poster shares your view on the subject at hand. It is also overwhelmingly clear that you are not going to get anyone around here to share your view. So, what I suggest is that you stop making a further fool of yourself and seize letting all of here to know how little you understand of this game by writing posts revealing your ignorance over and over again.

What do you say? Try to save the minuscule remainders of your credibility and suffocate your desire to write any more comments to this thread. PLEASE.

[LeoLeo99]

This thread would have ended many post ago if you and your rulie friends would have taken the advice you give to others and stop responding. Is there some reason I don't comprehend why you and the other "rulies" feel a need to get the last word in or feel a need to get LICC to capitulate?

[Newby]

"Maybe not in the spirit of golf but legal and accepted none the less."

Rule 1.2 All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by: ....... following the Rules,

 

[LeoLeo99]

Yup, I agree. Sometimes it might feel like gaming the rules but nothing unethical about it.

[Mr. Bean]

And you felt the need to extend this thread? Well done.

[LeoLeo99]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/263/9SH33QN2YK7Z.gif

[LICC]

I posted esteemed writers and players, including legendary players, who agree with me. The silent majority