What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[DaveLeeNC]

You did not properly interpret what I said. Being in the middle of a forrest with no swing and no path back to the fairway (even with a 2CL or back of the ball/hole line relief) is certainly (in most cases) a worse place to be (under the current rules of golf) than is being at the bottom of a pond (where a 1 stroke penalty might well give you a shot at the green). That is a correct statement and means what it says, and not what you claim that it means.

BTW, Davep (in post #929) has done you the courtesy of actually explaining your logic (which somehow you would not or could not do). Today the RoG simply are not structured to reflect the difficulty of the situation in the penalty applied. You want that to change - but that does not make the current rules illogical. It just makes their fundamental basis different than your preference.

dave

[isaacbm]

You’re exactly right. We talked about this 10 pages ago or so when we were discussing how important the definitions of the game are. I don’t remember exactly what he said because I refuse to go back but I’m sure he’ll come on here and tell you again why the definitions are not relevant.

[isaacbm]

And to me one of the most important definitions is the boundary of the golf course. He said multiple times that a ball that is hit 6 inches out of bounds should not be any different than a ball that is resting at the bottom of a pond.

Then he accuses us of hypothetical situations. How about the hypothetical situation that every ball is 6 inches past the OB post.?! lol! Let’s be more realistic and talk about the OB balls that are hit way past a backyard, over a person’s house, over a city street, etc.

The importance shouldn’t just be whether something is slightly out of bounds it should be recognized also that it is further away from the target. The shot that is hit 40 yards off the property over somebody’s house into an adjoining street should definitely be defined as “worse” then one that is hit 7 yards from the edge of the fairway into the bottom of a pond.

 

When writing the rules to any game, definitions are Paramont.

[rogolf]

Or use the definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary.

[Vindog]

Its “perplexing” to use his term. It’s better than that. He says they’re “not good enough”

[LICC]

Please post a picture of this wall of trees forest that you can’t chip or pitch the ball anywhere near to back in play, and that is not a penalty area.

[Vindog]

You can’t fathom a possibility that a ball can’t put back into play from the woods?

Kevin Na took 16 because of it.

 

[davep043]

[CaseyC]

https://golfweek.com/2018/04/06/tiger-finds-woods-takes-unplayable-lie-on-no-5-at-masters/

[LICC]

You are confusing lines of play with unplayable lies. Tiger dropped in the woods to a playable lie and chipped out. Kevin Na had an unplayable lie and then he played the rest of the shots like an idiot. He dropped and just smacked at the ball instead of setting up to make a good shot. And if an area is so densely wooded that you can’t even walk through it or take a stance anywhere, the committee should deem it a penalty area. Deficient committees don’t justify illogical rules.

[Vindog]

We’re not talking about excecution. We’re discussing the possibility that a ball can’t be played out. Also, at the time, designating such an area as a PA was not allowed.

 

But why all of the sudden care about the definitions of the areas of the course?

[CaseyC]

"Please post a picture of this wall of trees forest that you can’t chip or pitch the ball anywhere near to back in play, and that is not a penalty area"

"And if an area is so densely wooded that you can’t even walk through it or take a stance anywhere, the committee should deem it a penalty area. Deficient committees don’t justify illogical rules."

ROTFLMAO...

 

 

[rogolf]

A New Year's revelation:

LICC's opinion is that some of the Rules are "illogical", and keeps ranting about it, over and over. It's readily apparent that nothing is going to change his opinion - see the last 10 pages of posts, and he just keeps on ranting (because it solicits responses?).

He's like a fisherman - as long as he keeps catching fish with the same lure/bait, he's going to keep on using it.

Let's just play golf by the Rules as produced by the governing bodies and history, or whatever rules you want to apply, and let's quit rising to his bait.

[nsxguy]

Good thing you're better at making eagles that posting pictures. LMAO

[Mikey5e]

I think most of the posts in here are just arguing with the intent of causing trouble. Also, most of the comments that say there shouldn't be any changes to the lost ball or OB rule are pretty lame. I think it makes complete sense, and would be beneficial to the game of golf if the OB were treated like a hazard. Now watch all the anti posters come out and flame me for it!

[nsxguy]

"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."

Sure it can. How about the middle of the fairway ?

[nsxguy]

No need to flame you for it. It's been discussed over and over again.

You want it changed, others don't. C'est la vie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[davep043]

I don't agree with you, but I can accept that. You think changing the rule would make sense and would be beneficial. I think its appropriate the way it is, based on my understand of the hierarchy of penalties established in the Rules. What you haven't done is to tell me that yours is the only logical way to look at the situation, that any opinion that differs with yours is "illogical".

[Hawkeye77]

All 12 disciples hated hitting out of divot scrapes and not getting free relief and expounded on this when they ran for political office and when monetizing their websites free on wrx.

 

That should do it. ;-)

[nsxguy]

 

[HitEmTrue]

Back in play? You’ve got to get it into a similar position as a decent tee shot would be. Within 2-strokes, including any unplayable lie penalty that may need to be taken.

[Mikey5e]

I would also like to see a rule stating it is okay for a mulligan off the first tee if you didn't like your first tee shot. Note that it would just be the first tee and none thereafter.

[Sawgrass]

Why do you wish to limit Mulligans to the first tee only?

 

[DaveLeeNC]

BTW, I think that everybody is wrong here. The severity of the penalties being discussed should be based on how far you move your ball. It is ludicrous to assign the same 1 stroke penalty to the golfer who is stuck against a tree trunk and moves his ball a mere foot for relief when compared to the golfer who launches his ball 50 yards into a pond and moves his ball 50 yards but gets the same penalty.

I can't imagine anything more illogical than that.

dave

[CaseyC]

If I hit it 50 yards into the pond, why should I have to drop relative to the point it crossed the line? Why can't I drop perpendicular to where it landed in the pond. I mean, I hit it 50 yards farther. Haveing to use the point were it last crossed double penalizes me. I should only be penalized for the shot being off line... ;)

[BlackDiamondPar5]

How do you think he got 5 eagles? :)

[Newby]

But that isn't logical

[LICC]

There was an assertion that the first tee mulligan was effectively ending your round after the first swing, and when you tee up again you are starting a new round, thus not violating the rules. Obviously that doesn’t work if you are playing a match unless your opponent agrees.

[LICC]

If you hit 50 yards into a pond, you get credit for the distance you were able to hit the ball over the playable area. Logical.

[LICC]

Why? That assumes your second tee shot will always be a good one.