What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

Just because you have not personally insulted anyone doesn’t mean you aren’t acting like an a-hole.

 

Real enough?

[LeoLeo99]

You have a very low threshold for asinine behavior. He's merely insulting the golf rules. People get bent out of shape over that. Silly. If this thread bothers people so much then stop posting in it.

[Mr. Bean]

Now you have really crossed the line... private messages...honestly, dude!

I have received 120,345 PM's telling me that you are an idiot. How many have you got?

Oh, and you have not yet answered my question in my post #894. Having trouble in answering it or reading it..?

[Vindog]

Nah. He just acts like that.

Don’t ruin your own credibility, defending someone else’s quest for chaos.

[DaveLeeNC]

Let's see here - the severity of a penalty is not a logic issue (according to you). And it is based on the concept of 'fairness' which is hardly a strictly logic issue in all cases (that would apparently include this one). So where does the logic come from? If your inputs are not logically based, how do you come up with a SINGULAR 'strictly logical' conclusion?

BTW, you do realize that there are many places on (and I mean 'on' in the strictest fashion) many golf courses that are a worse place to be than the "bottom of a pond" that happens to be on that same course. Should the rules be addressing those as well? Where did this (apparent) view that 'nothing is worse than being in a pond' come from? To me the worst shots that I have ever hit did not go in the water. In fact I have hit some pretty good shots that ended in the water.

If somehow 'in a pond' was truly representative of the worst thing that a golfer could do with a golf ball, I would understand your position (still might not agree with it, but I would understand it). Lots of us do not agree with your premise. So quit arguing about the damn penalty and defend your premise. That is where the issue lies.

dave

[nsxguy]

"He's merely insulting the golf rules"

 

Really ? If I quoted YOU and called what you wrote "nonsense", would you consider that an insult ? Or just an astute observation ?

[LeoLeo99]

It takes more than one person to create chaos on a golf forum devoted to discussion of the rules. Several have advised others to ignore LICC but they just can't seem to ignore him themselves.

[Warrior42111]

Whether or not a rule or penalty is fair is unbelievably subjectIve. What one person deems fair or logical can be far different than another person.

reviewing the thread it seemed the consensus is that the rules being argued are indeed fair and logical.

its fine to be in the minority and defending it. But it’s hard to believe that none of the points being made don’t even deserve acknowledgement as a coherent thought

[LeoLeo99]

I wouldn't take it so personally that he belittles your posts. You've worked yourself into a tizzy. Be the bigger man. Name calling doesn't look good.

This thread has run its course for me. Even though Mr Bean can't follow his own sage advice, I will take it and cease posting in this thread.

Happy New Year to all. Wishing everyone a healthy year full of fairways and greens and birdies.

[nsxguy]

You suggested he was only insulting the Rules.

I asked you a question and instead of answering it you gave me a lot of words.

Happy New Year to you too !!!

[LICC]

Please provide what point was made anywhere in this discussion that validated any logic of having a different penalty for a ball that lands in the bottom of a lateral pond as compared to a ball that lands in a lateral OB.

[DaveLeeNC]

One point is on the golf course property and the other is not. Why would the penalties for these different situations HAVE TO BE the same?

dave

[Warrior42111]

One idea could be to add to the strategy of a hole. A player might be more aggressive if it just a lateral hazard versus OB. It adds to course management decisions and part of the mental game of golf.

[LICC]

How you can’t understand that is a distinction without a difference is perplexing. People here just keep repeating that line with no reasoning at all behind it.

You are on the tee. The fairway is in front of you. Situation 1- a long pond lines the right side of the fairway. Situation 2- houses and white stakes line the right side of the fairway. From a golf playing standpoint, it makes NO difference. If you hit a bad slice, in either situation your ball ends up in a place that you cannot hit it. The penalties should be the same. Indisputable logic

[LICC]

Give me one example where a course was designed differently because the lateral trouble was a pond instead of OB. Where the designer would have built the hole to be more or less difficult if there was an OB instead of a pond or vice versa.

[DaveLeeNC]

In one place you are allowed to play the ball. You may or may not be able to depending on the depth of the water (and golf history is full of shots hit out of water). The other place PLAY IS PROHIBITED. These are not the same.

dave

[Warrior42111]

ok Drivable short par 4 slight dog leg right. If the was water up the right side golfers might be more apt to go for it and if in trouble and still be able to get up and down for par. Now if you replace the water with OB more golfers will not go for at and take a less aggressive line/ club.

[LICC]

Your argument comes down to: You are allowed to play a ball in the bottom of a pond. SMH.

[LICC]

Give an actual example where the designer based a hole design on the difference between OB and a water hazard. Not a hypothetical.

[Vindog]

That’s an irrelevant point as well. From a playing standpoint an unplayable ball at the bottom of casual water is the same as a ball at the bottom of a pond, yet they are treated very differently.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

That is one thing that differentiates the two situation that you claim are identical (and choose to ignore the fact that many times balls have been hit out of ponds).

dave

ps. Does anyone know how to unsubscribe from a thread? Serious question, BTW. This knowledge would make 2 people happy (me and LICC).

[Warrior42111]

It’s a principle of golf design. A designer could add a water hazard to the right or place that area as OB.

also the example I gave is hole 17 Viera east golf club. It’s set up as a waste bunker and OB right but the designer could have

made a lateral hazard instead based on what they wanted. Same course hole 10 the designer uses a pond right instead Of OB

[LICC]

That entire course is built through housing. It looks like there is housing off almost every fairway. Sorry, not buying there was some different strategy put in by Joe Lee for different strategic decisions for water compared to OB.

[Newby]

LICC

The effect of a specific cause is laid down by the RBs in the same way that the laws of physics lay down the effect of gravity. If the RBs specify a different effect from a cause there is no change to the logical relationship between a cause and its effect.

You seem to be confusing the logic of cause and effect with the appropriateness of the laid down effect

[Mr. Bean]

Read post #894 and answer the question. Original post is #613.

[LICC]

You are conflating causality with inferential reasoning.

[LICC]

@DaveLeeNC ”BTW, you do realize that there are many places on (and I mean 'on' in the strictest fashion) many golf courses that are a worse place to be than the "bottom of a pond" that happens to be on that same course.“
This is an example of the illogical thinking that gets you to these illogical inconsistencies in the rules. From a golf playing standpoint, a ball that is In a place that is impossible to play, for whatever reason, can not be in a better position than another place. It can be equally bad, and the relief areas can be better or worse, but whether the ball is at the bottom of a pond, stuck at the top of a tree, in a barbecue grill in the backyard of a house off the fairway, etc, from the standpoint of playing the ball, they are all unable to be played.

[Vindog]

 

 

Obviously, the area of the course where the ball lies matters.

 

[davep043]

I can almost understand @LICC now. He is only concerned about the physical ability of the player to play the ball as it lies. What he does not choose to recognize is the authority of the Ruling Bodies to define different locations within the golf course (and off of it too), and to then define differing penalties based on where the ball lies within those different areas.

[Mikey5e]