What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

For me the discussion paper reinforces the OB and lost ball rule. They have tried, at the behest of players, to come up with a workaround. However they haven’t been able to because it’s so sound logically.

 

 

 

[davep043]

"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."

There's also a larger discussion of the Unplayable Ball rule. Tufts suggests that because the determination of "unplayable" is at the sole discretion of the player, it is appropriate that the penalty be severe enough to discourage the player from utilizing relief under that rule for relatively trivial difficulties. I didn't find Tufts saying anything about the "proper" use of Unplayable Ball relief.

Another interesting bit, even nearer to the end of the book, Tufts says that its is quite possible that any one rule, when examined on its own, might seem illogical. But the rules fit together, most rules function alongside of in addition to a different rule, and that seeming illogic within a single rule can be essential to making the rules function properly as a whole. That's me paraphrasing, I didn't bring the book to work with me.

[LICC]

Of course it does, because it just repeats the same flawed illogical thinking that you’ve parroted here over and over again.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The only one I know of :)

[Mikey5e]

So sound logically? I must be playing with golfers that have opinions that don't matter, but I do think they matter. Each golfer I have discussed this with, and there are many, thinks there needs to be some changes to the stroke and distance rule, even as it stands today. Yes, it's just what people think and what their opinions are, none the less, most everybody I talk to thinks there needs to be changes made. I'm not the type to want to dumb down the game of golf so that everybody can shoot par, I just want to make the game that much more enjoyable for all people who play. I know, just don't hit the ball OB, but there's not much worse in the game then hitting your 4th shot where are you could have been hitting your second. What I think might be applicable and a solid rule change would be something like this:

Three choices:

1) Hit a provisional (3rd stroke)

2) play a lost ball from faiway (4th stroke, same as now)

3) drop new ball from ob point, 1 club length, then hit 3rd shot( sort of like it is now, but would be the case even if you could not find your OB golf ball)

[davep043]

"Three choices:

1) Hit a provisional (3rd stroke)

2) play a lost ball from faiway (4th stroke, same as now)

3) drop new ball from ob point, 1 club length, then hit 3rd shot( sort of like it is now, but would be the case even if you could not find your OB golf ball)"

So choice 1, you're lying 3 somewhere out there (maybe in trouble, maybe OB again). Choice 2, you're lying 3 in the fairway, using what is now an optional local rule. Choice 3, you're lying 2, about even with choice 2. Choice 3 seems unreasonably advantageous to me, when compared to the other two options you suggest. Its also nothing like the rules as they exist right now, its a full stroke less penalty than even the optional local rule. And its reasonable to note that this type of relief was tried for a year, and was eliminated when the results were found to be unacceptable.

You're right, there's not a lot worse things than hitting 3 from the tee, but the severity of the penalty is appropriate.

[LICC]

How is it unreasonably advantageous if it is the exact same position you would be in if the ball was lost in a lateral water hazard rather than past an OB stake?

[davep043]

Please read the entire sentence. I wasn't comparing it to a red penalty area, i was comparing it to the other options he suggested:

"Choice 3 seems unreasonably advantageous to me, when compared to the other two options you suggest."

I am not going back to the OB double-penalty v penalty area nonsense, I'm satisfied that the two situations are different enough to warrant different penalties.

[LICC]

But you can’t provide a logical explanation for your satisfaction that the situations should be treated differently. And you said his proposal is nothing like the rules now, which is false because it is exactly like the rules now for water hazards (penalty areas), which for purposes of playing a hole with a lateral OB or a lateral pond or lake, there is no material difference with how you should play the hole. This really is the crux of where you are stuck with a major flaw in your reasoning.

[Vindog]

There a difference between not liking the penalty, and saying that it isn’t logically sound. If there were holes in the logic of the spirit of S&D, then the ruling bodies would have changed it by now. Remember that they have tried over the years but always come back.

[Vindog]

I understand it must be hard for you being on the losing end of things.

[davep043]

To quote YOU: "I already addressed it. Just repeating yourself constantly isn’t good argument"

[LICC]

Oh, in addition to the illogical inconsistency in the rules, it is also a bad rule because it doubly penalizes one bad swing for no good reason.

[Sawgrass]

Dave, you say, "You're right, there's not a lot worse things than hitting 3 from the tee, but the severity of the penalty is appropriate." (Man, I hate having to double quote quotes!)

I agree that the severity of the penalty is appropriate, but I do want to emphasize that in match play there are plenty of "worse things" than a stroke and distance penalty, each causing you to lose the hole. I can imagine it now, a certain someone saying, "You accidentally move your ball a half inch in the fairway, 200 yards from the hole, you fail to replace it and then you LOSE THE HOLE to a guy who gets a triple? ILLOGICAL!"

[rogolf]

One of the common definitions of insanity, "doing (saying) the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

[Mr. Bean]

'Please read the entire sentence.'

Are you sure he can cope with such a demanding task..? He is here only to amuse us, not to give logical arguments, like he had any tools to make them...

[Vindog]

There is a good reason. A couple actually.

 

It must be hard for you being on the losing end of things.

[Mr. Bean]

I noticed that LICC got one 'like' some posts ago. Good for him. But I cannot help myself thinking of one thing he wrote hundreds of posts ago, that he has so and so many 'likes' that he gets 2 'likes' every 3 posts he writes or something like that. Well, obviously he is now writing on a wrong forum as he sure gets way less than that around here.

[Mikey5e]

Just as bad, and maybe worse, is the attempt to reiterate over and over again how fair a flawed rule is. You naysayers just can't get over the idea that the rules could have flaws within them, and how you think your ways are so perfect.

[DaveLeeNC]

The idea that hitting a ball off the golf course would deserve a worse penalty than errors of hitting the ball in some bad place on the golf course is logical. If you think that is wrong it is a judgement call (that both sides are making). It is not illogical as you claim.

dave

[Vindog]

Well here’s the thing. Many rules have been changed. Stoke and distance, after having been reviewed many times always come back. If it is so flawed and illogical, why is that?

Stiff penalty? Sure. People don’t want to take it, even pro players. But that’s opinion, not logic

 

[nsxguy]

 

Even in your own suggestions they're not comparable to each other. LMAO

Wanna bet that your new buddy LICC has mentioned the "flaw" FAR MORE than ANY other poster has "supported" it ?

Didn't think so. LOL

[LICC]

You are saying that hitting it to the bottom of a pond is somehow better than hitting a ball a few inches past a white stake on the side of a fairway. Sorry, not sorry- that is not logical.

[Mr. Bean]

Here we go again...

This particular thing I explained to you in the very beginning but you keep insisting it is not logical. Well, maybe from your point of you it is not because your brain has too little capacity to understand the concept of logical.

Now, here is a task for you: please do explain why the explanation I gave you in my very first post in this thread is not logical. If (and when...) you cannot explain it you admit you are just plain stupid.

Good luck.

EDIT: Oh, and Happy New Year!

[LICC]

You really are having difficulty following. The severity of the penalty is not a logic issue. It is a matter of opinion based on fairness. The inconsistency of the rules for OB and water hazard penalty areas is illogical.

[LICC]

Of course you are not counting those who have private messaged me complimenting my picking apart you righteous “rulies” (their words, not mine).

[Halebopp]

Now that's simply a straw man argument, I haven't heard anyone claim the rules are perfect. I'm pretty sure everyone who knows the rules well could point out several issues they're not happy with or believe should at least be reviewed. For example, in my opinion, the model local rule for lost balls and OB would need to include unplayable lies to make it fair and worth considering putting into use for casual play. Secondly, a ball played from the putting green hitting another ball at rest on the putting green (but with the second ball having been played from the putting green while the first ball was in motion) leads to an unfair two-stroke penalty for player one. Another one is whether or not yellow penalty areas should exist at all anymore. If you hit the ball over the YPA but it rolls back into the PA, you've proven you can hit the ball over the PA, shouldn't that be enough (I'm on the fence about it)? Rules issues brought up by others have included not penalizing players asking for advice as long as no advice is actually given and certainly a fair share of other issues I can't be bothered to think about right now.

 

But that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to "discuss" issues with someone who dismisses every single contradicting point of view simply as illogical. Or the examples showing flaws in his thinking so rare and hyperbolical those can be dismissed for their pure ridiculousness (issues like people of different height and physical strength playing the game, courses where a ball couldn't be chipped back onto the fairway with a single stroke when you do miss the fairway, penalty areas that start a couple of yards in front of you but are 200+ yards long etc.). The other side is actually trying to have a civilized discussion about the subject matter, showing the flaws with examples of the arising problems and so forth. The blame most certainly doesn't fall on those who think S&D, lost ball and OB rules are good the way they are.

[Vindog]

It doesn’t seem that way. They haven’t been able to find a way to work around its logical stability.

 

[LICC]

Lots of nonsense here. Many here have stated that the S&D rules have been reviewed and considered by the USGA already so how dare anyone question it. And you may think those defending the rule have just posted civil discussion points, but you are ignoring all the personal insults and baseless high mindedness. I’ve never personally insulted anyone here. The reality is certain people here just can’t handle their views and arguments being shown to be flawed and deficient.

[CaseyC]

"...but you are ignoring all the personal insults and baseless high mindedness. I’ve never personally insulted anyone here...."

 

What an illogical argument.