What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

Where did it say that such areas "should" be a PA? Nothing I have read compels a commitee to mark additional areas as PAs. It just expands the option

[CaseyC]

It's illogical to say it is misinterpretting a rule when the rule clearly says it is allowed.

[antip]

My comment is on the third sentence - the one sentence here which raises a golf issue. If you employ your mind to reflect on the implications of such a change.......

Such a change would massively alter the nature of the game and the way it is played. It would significantly hamstring course designs, neutering many thousands of deliberate designs world wide. One of the most fundamental features of the game is you MUST keep the played ball within the specific limits identified and not lose your ball or, if your skills are not sufficient to observe those constraints, you are required to replay the stroke from where the previous (failed) shot was made. Throw that away, and it is no longer the same game - you would just be hoiking (my technical term) a ball around a paddock in some very poor echo of our game. To be clear, this is nothing to do with the Rules, it is about the fundamental nature of the way the game is played.

And this post is not about flaming Mikey5e (although that seems to be the invitation), but observing the wider implications of an idea that has been posted for others to read.

[CaseyC]

More on marking penalty areas

 

 

When a penalty area is bordered by parts of the general area where a ball could be lost, it may affect the player’s ability to establish if it is known or virtually certain that the ball is in the penalty area and the player would, therefore, not be able to take penalty area relief using Rule 17. For this reason, the Committee may decide to extend the edge of the penalty area outside the normal natural boundaries and include other areas where it may be difficult to find a ball.

[LICC]

The rule says no such thing. Prime example right here of the flawed statements and thinking of a handful of people here.

[Vindog]

More on marking:

The fact that marking a difficult area as a penalty area may improve pace of play does not mean that the Committee should feel compelled to do so. There are many other competing considerations, such as retaining the challenge of the hole, the integrity of the architect’s original design intention and providing reasonably consistent outcomes for balls hit into similar types of areas throughout the course. For example, if a jungle borders the fairway on one hole and it has been marked as a penalty area, the Committee should consider treating similar areas the same way on other holes.

[rogolf]

I admire Mr. Tuft's knowledge, work on the Rules Committees and writings, but, in my opinion, some of the writings and opinions are now largely historical. What was considered applicable to the current game and its Rules has been adapted by the governing bodies in the current Rules. Under the current Rules, the player has the right to treat his ball as unplayable anywhere on the course, except in a penalty area, and proceed under any of the options presented in Rule 19.

For example, and not a hypothetical based on Phil Mickelson in the US Open, if I putt my ball off the green into a bunker, I can treat it as unplayable and return to where I played my last stroke, under Rule 19 (recognizing that Rule 18 also provides that opportunity). In your opinion, I understand that would be dishonest, even though it's permitted by the Rules.

[LICC]

Holy exaggeration! Applying one penalty for one bad swing instead of two penalties, which was the case back and forth for the first 60 years of the USGA rules, wouldn’t negatively change course design or anything else. It would benefit the game.

[antip]

Congratulations. Not sure you'll be able to top that one in the rest of 2020.

[LICC]

Again, if you want to dishonestly apply the rule. The rule is for unplayable balls, Rule 18 is for any ball. Why have Rule 18 if Rule 19 applies to everything- that would be illogical.

[Vindog]

If it were such a betterment to the game, how come it always always comes back? Is it possible that they realized that taking away S&D for OB was of no betterment to the game? Possible that they realize it is the most logical and fair outcome to the design of courses and the idea of game management?

 

Luckily you have E-5 to fall back on now.

[LICC]

Why did they just change several rules that had been in place for decades? They didn’t know decades ago that courses should have penalty areas beside water? They didn’t know whether flagsticks should come in or out? They didn’t know how to treat the ball hitting the club twice until now? Maybe it came back because the USGA has been run by out of touch elitists.

[Sean2]

I am not sure about that. There have been some fairly bad rules, some of which have been addressed and changed appropriately. As I have said, I find S&D unduly penal, in addition to the pace of play issues arising therefrom.

That all said, I don't see a ton of balls hit OB. So while I don't like S&D, it is not as if it is a habitual thing.

[rogolf]

I don't recall saying that Rule 19 applied to "everything", but it does give the player the right to treat his ball as unplayable anywhere on the course, except in a penalty area. Recognize that Rules 17, 18, and 19 all permit an option for the player to proceed under stroke and distance; however, for a ball that is lost outside a penalty area or that is out of bounds, Rule 18 requires stroke and distance. It's all pretty straightforward.

Playing according to the Rules is not being dishonest.

[Vindog]

Indeed many rules have been changed, and many of them have stuck But they've gone back and forth so much on S&D, yet they can't find a usable work around. That must say something to it's sound logic. Fortunately for pace of play advocates, there is E-5 now, and I'm okay with that

[LICC]

Stating that a playable ball is unplayable is dishonest.

[antip]

On the subject of MLR E-5....

@Vindog recently observed "Luckily you have E-5 to fall back on now."

You would be hard pressed to find that MLR operating in this district. Here's the notice board advice from one club that found some folk helping themselves to this local rule despite the minor detail that it was not in place.ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS: CORRECTING A COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE 2019 RULES OF GOLFMurrumbidgee Country Club is one of many clubs that has NOT adopted the 2019 Model Local Rule E-5 that provides an alternative to Stroke and Distance for Lost Ball or Ball Out of Bounds. That local rule, if adopted by a club for part or all of the course, enables a ball to be dropped in and played from a relief area determined by use of a ball reference point and fairway reference point (effectively enabling relief on the edge of the fairway) for 2 penalty strokes. Our Match Committee has determined NOT to adopt this local rule for any club competition, consistent with the guidance from the R&A/USGA that this Local Rule is appropriate for general play where golfers are playing casual rounds or playing their own competitions (ie social competitions only).So, precisely, as has been the case previously, if your ball is lost or out of bounds, you MUST proceed under Stroke and Distance (Rule 18.2). And if your ball may be lost outside a penalty area or may be out of bounds, we encourage you in the strongest possible terms to announce and play a Provisional Ball before moving forward to search.

 

[Vindog]

My friend Charlie (sadly passed recently) ran/owned Bar Harbor GC in Trenton, Maine.

 

He made it well known to everyone that anything run through the club would not use E-5. So not everyone was in favor of it, necessarily

 

Sean2 Also might like to know that he was from our town, Weymouth. And every Memorial Day weekend was Weymouth Days.

[rogolf]

I realize that is your opinion, but it's not shared by many here and elsewhere. I'll suggest that you ask the governing body (USGA information provided below) and then report back to us on their interpreation versus your opinion. I'll even frame the question for you to submit, "Is proceeding under Rule 19, when a ball on the course is playable outside a penalty area, considered a breach of Rule Rule 1.2a, "being honest in all aspects of play?". Let's see if the answer you receive to that question matches the one that I receive.Rules of Golf Phone: 908-326-1850 (7 days a week)

Fax: 908-234-9687

E-mail: [email protected]

[LICC]

You can just disregard the Tufts book for no good reason, but it and just basic reason supports my view. Unplayable means unplayable. And Rule 18 would be superfluous if Rule 19 was meant to apply to playable balls.

[rogolf]

I don’t recall saying that I “disregarded” Mr. Tufts’ writings. I do recall saying that I have great respect for his works, and further suggested that some of the opinions and writings are now historic (just like the 1960 Rules of golf for example) and some of the principles have been adapted into the current Rules.

I have submitted the framed question regarding playable/unplayable/honesty to the USGA, anticipating that you will do the same in support of your opinion. I look forward to their response to both submissions.

[LICC]

So treating a playable ball as unplayable in 1960 was unprincipled but doing the same in 2019 was principled because ... just because time passed. Sure ...

[DaveLeeNC]

I was a classmate (college) of a linebacker on the football team. He used to do these weird neck exercises and I asked him about that one day. He said that they taught him to tackle by leading with his helmet and a strong neck was important. That would have been around 1970. Today that gets you kicked out of the game. Things change.

dave

[Sean2]

Small world Vindog! BTW, I don't know any courses in the area that adopted E-5.

[Sawgrass]

I have no doubt that the USGA will support your (obviously correct) position, Rogolf.

But I also have no doubt that LICC will simply deem their response “illogical” and bob and weave somewhere else. He respects no definition of logic other than that which subjectively appeals to him. Not worth your trouble.

[Mr. Bean]

The Mastermind of All Golfing World (I am of course referring to Least Intelligent Chap of the Club) keeps being adamant about current S&D being too penal... oh, sorry, ILLOGICAL. Just out of curiosity I started to think about courses I have played and the OB's on them. I came up with the conclusion that on some courses eliminating the penalty stroke from the current Rule 18 would result in players taking much more risks as the reward would still be achieved even though one or even two balls were hit OB. I have very serious doubts that kind of behavior would be beneficial to the game of golf.

P.S. I am becoming more and more convinced that this guy has never even played golf, such an amount of ignorance is being conveyed through his posts that no golfer could ever come up with.

[Vindog]

I've been assuming it meant Logic is Constantly Changing.

 

[davep043]

I read quickly through the Tufts book, and didn't find the bit you quoted, although I did find some other discussions of the Unplayable Ball options, and the reason for them. None of those sections questioned the "honesty" of invoking the rule, but I want to make sure I haven't missed something. Can you let us know what chapter or what page you're referring to?

[LICC]

I don’t have it in front of me now but I think it was in a section called Dropped Stitches or something similar.

[Newby]

 I agree with Tufts in his book on the principles of the rules. Declaring a ball in a playable lie as unplayable is dishonest.

A search of the Tufts' book shows no relevant mention of the words honest or dishonest.

However, he does write on page 24 "In the case of an unplayable ball [Rule 28] the player is the sole judge as to when the ball is unplayable. This must be so because it is impracticable to define the conditions which make a ball unplayable, it is basically a matter of opinion".