What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Sawgrass]

I respect all of this post, and further agree that it is very helpful to have waste areas clearly identified in one way or another. But I don't really see that as a rules issue, but rather a Committee obligation to the players.

[LICC]

Because that is a flawed interpretation of the rule given its express language and the existence of Rule 18.1

The rule says the purpose is to provide relief "for an unplayable ball." It doesn't say it is to provide relief for an unplayable ball or a difficult line of play. Your get-out-of-jail rule for a difficult playing situation is the Rule 18 stroke-and-distance relief. Why would Rule 18.1 be even necessary if Rule 19.1 was meant to allow any ball to be picked up and given relief? Your view of the unplayable lie rule renders Rule 18.1 duplicative.

And since you missed it, the Tufts book, Principles Behind the Rules of Golf, states: "It is, of course, expected that the reader will appreciate it is the condition of his ball that makes it 'unfit for play' and the character of its lie that makes it 'unplayable.'"

[LICC]

See my last post. Tufts in his book wrote that certain things should be understood, such as that the character of a ball's lie is what makes it unplayable. And your interpretation makes rule 18.1 superfluous.

[davep043]

@LICC interpretation:
The rule says the purpose is to provide relief "for an unplayable ball." It doesn't say it is to provide relief for an unplayable ball or a difficult line of play.
Actual Rule:
Purpose of Rule: Rule 19 covers your relief options for an unplayable ball. This allows you to choose which option to use – normally with one penalty stroke – to get out of a difficult situation anywhere on the course (except in a penalty area).
Rule says "difficult situation", that to me includes any number of types of problem. "Unplayable ball" could quite logically mean a ball for which there is no line of play that offers a reasonable chance of success. Notice that the "lie" of the ball is never mentioned. To exclude this possibility is to restrict the rule beyond what it actually says, and beyond the stated purpose.
And given your history of quoting only the portions of text that support you, while ignore anything that doesn't, I'll read Tufts on my own.

[LICC]

Talk about selective quoting. Let's expand that quote of yours:

"Rule 19 - Unplayable BallPurpose of Rule: Rule 19 covers the player’s several relief options for an unplayable ball. This allows the player to choose which option to use – normally with one penalty stroke – to get out of a difficult situation anywhere on the course (except in a penalty area).

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.

Unplayable ball relief is allowed anywhere on the course

, except in a penalty area

.If a ball is unplayable in a penalty area

, the player’s only relief option is to take penalty relief under Rule 17.19.2 Relief Options for Unplayable Ball in General Area or on Putting GreenA player may take unplayable ball relief using one of the three options in Rule 19.2a, b or c, in each case adding one penalty stroke."

---

The name of the rule states "Unplayable Ball" The purpose preamble's first sentence says it covers relief options for an "unplayable ball". The heading for section 19.1 says "Unplayable Ball". The section for 19.2 says "Unplayable ball". Your copying of the statement about a "difficult situation" is in the preamble purpose section and it immediately follows the sentence that says the rule covers options for an "unplayable ball." That clearly is referring to a difficult situation caused by an unplayable ball. That you are relying on that alone, when all other references in the rule, including all the references in the actual rule provisions and not the preamble, are to an "unplayable ball", is telling.

And I quoted Tufts word for word, right out of the book. Go try to spin that the same way you are trying to spin the rule preamble.

[Vindog]

Exactly. And this is precisely what happened to me earlier in the thread. So I figured I’d give it a try.

[davep043]

Has any of us ever seen a ball on the putting green that is impossible to make a stroke at? I certainly never have, and cannot imagine how such a thing could happen. After all, you can mark and replace the ball, you can repair damage, you can remove loose impediments. I wonder why unplayable ball relief is allowed on the putting green, what could POSSIBLY happen to make that an option? Maybe a player would take such relief because his line of play was impossible, even though he could easily strike the ball. Hmmmm.
But again, adding the restriction that it must be impossible to strike the ball was @LICC , that wasn't actually in the rules.

[Sean2]

It's all a bit moot anyway. If I could, I would change the "stroke and distance" rule, but I can't so I accept it and move on.

[Mr. Bean]

I have not said I know better. I gave you the rational explanation but as I predicted you refuse to accept it just because you want to. Nothing rational about that.

I am done with this stupidity.

[Mr. Bean]

Oh my... I just to had to comment on this one:

You are simply and plainly stupid! I have played golf almost 30 years and been refereeing almost 15 years and I have seen maybe about three times a ball that could not be advanced by hitting it. However, hitting a ball in such circumstances would not be beneficial or ultimately could have resulted in injury for the player or damage to the club.

Are you really this stupid or are you just acting just to keep us astonished by such amount of stupidity???

[Mikey5e]

I think every golfer accepts it and moves on, but there there is no problem discussing it. After all that is the theme of this particular thread.

[LICC]

What if the ball is embedded in the green?

[DaveLeeNC]

Is this really a question or just typing practice?

dave

 

[Sawgrass]

Dave, in regard to your comment, "And given your history of quoting only the portions of text that support you, while ignore anything that doesn't, I'll read Tufts on my own" I'll add that you would be wise to do so, and to note that on page 71 of the Second Edition, © 2012, it says, "Unhappily, there as been a great deal of public clamor in favor of a softer rule for a ball out of bounds. The rules-makers have long been aware of golfers' interest, but it has been simply impossible to devise any rule which accomplished the desired results without doing real injury to the game." LICC has, as you expected, ignored that bit.

If one wants something more recent, in March 2017, while the new rules were being debated, the USGA put out a long discussion on the topic which can be read here: https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/stroke-and-distance-relief.html . . . or summarized by the following quote: "Having reviewed the various options, our conclusion to date is that the identified possible alternatives to stroke and distance relief are not workable and/or not consistent with the principles of the game."

Of course, the ruling bodies relented somewhat with the later establishment of Local Rule E-5, but that of course comes with a two stroke penalty which is rejected by LICC, despite his previous claim that it is not a lower score that motivates him. He sees his motivation as "logic" despite our two Ruling Bodies' more than 125 years (each) studying and debating this issue and coming to the current state of affairs.

Does one have to agree with them? Of course not. But to say that their efforts are "illogical" is beyond arrogant.

 

[isaacbm]

 

I count at least nine on the list that apply directly to LICC...

he could be the poster boy.

[LICC]

That discussion paper just reinforces the illogical flaws in the USGA rules. The different penalties for a ball ending OB as compared to a ball ending in the bottom of a pond is illogical and no one here has provided any rational justification for it.

[LICC]

When people like @Mr. Bean and @isaacbm see how they are getting picked apart and their arguments made to look foolish, they just twist to personal insults. Sad.

[isaacbm]

Not a personal insult. Just an honest observation. I’m not mocking you. I just feel bad for you.

[rogolf]

That discussion paper just reinforces the illogical flaws in the USGA rules. The different penalties for a ball ending OB as compared to a ball ending in the bottom of a pond is illogical and no one here has provided any rational justification for it.

Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree? It seems the majority here believe that the outcomes have been well thought out over the years and are just fine. Imo, it's irrelevant as to whether you consider them logical or illogical. After all, you are entitled to your opinions. This Norwegian Blue has expired....

[Newby]

I'm sure there is a recognised personality trait that is manifested by continually repeating a mantra and expecting that people who disagree with it will suddenly find salvation and be converted.

[LeoLeo99]

There are several people with that affliction posting in this thread.

[nsxguy]

Tell him how many eagles you've made - that'll fix him !!! LOL

[Mikey5e]

Yes, I had five eagles two years ago, but I was shut out this year. Did this information solve the problem?

[Tocgolfer]

The one way I could fathom an unplayable ball on the green is if the green has a big slope that could see the ball roll off the green if the putt was missed and you are above the hole and the hole is the minimum distance from the edge and in “your” opinion if you putt the ball too hard it could end up 30 metres off the green. I am sure there are a multitude of other reasons to why you could declare a ball on the green unplayable.

[nsxguy]

Don't know about any problem. - I just suggested you tell someone else, you know, the guy YOU have the problem with. LOL

[Shilgy]

Are you really sure he has ever played? Some comments make you wonder.....

[antip]

Quoting Sawgrass on the published Alternatives to S&D study: "Does one have to agree with them? Of course not. But to say that their efforts are "illogical" is beyond arrogant."

Well said, Sir!

[Mr. Bean]

One of the utterly intelligent questions presented by the Radiant Mastermind of All Golfing Times in this thread reminded me of an incident some ten years ago. I was playing my home course and it was slightly wet due to the rain previous day. I approached the 1st green and my ball embedded in the semi rough just next to the green. There was no temporary water and no Local Rule to grant free relief so I had two choices: take an unplayable or play the ball as it lied. Only half of the ball was visible but I figured the soil had to be fairly soft so I decided to play that ball. I took my 60° lob wedge, opened the club face and blasted the ball (and part of the course...) onto the green just like making a normal bunker shot.

Now my question to the Mastermind is: was that ball unplayable?

[Mr. Bean]

'Has any of us ever seen a ball on the putting green that is impossible to make a stroke at?'

Sure! Every time the ball is holed!

[Vindog]

Stop it. You’re just conjuring up scenarios.