What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[KevCarter]

Page 24. He discusses why the player has to be the sole judge as to whether his ball is playable, and the justification for the penalty options for relief. There is also a lot of text throughout explaining the need for stroke and distance for lost ball or out of bounds. Using this book to argue anything else is both disingenuous and illogical.

 

[Vindog]

I was going to ask what the reference says about Lost balls and Out of Bounds. I don't have that book, so I was genuinely curious.

 

Thanks.

[Sawgrass]

Tufts has a lot to say on the topic, but the quote in my post #854 page 29 sums it up for me.

Do ask LICC for his view though . . .

[LICC]

You guys are losing credibility fast on this. I'm thinking you have a derangement syndrome with me that you can't admit when I'm right.

Nowhere in the book does Tufts say that someone can decide a playable ball is unplayable. He does say what I quoted above, that it is a ball's "lie that makes it unplayable."

Also, he states that one of the two great principles in golf is that you "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Rule 9 states that a central principle of the game is to "play the ball as it lies." To think that someone can take a ball he considers to have a perfectly fine lie and declare it unplayable and move it back to get a better line, and not violate the great and general principles of golf, would be, dare I say it ... illogical.

[davep043]

I may comment more once @LICC gives us the actual location of his quote from Tufts. I'll be interested to see if, in context, it actually tells us that making a choice that you are specifically allowed to make under the rules is "dishonest". I am doubtful, but until I read the entire section again for myself, I'll suspend judgement. I'll also look for anything that suggests that "stroke and distance" is actually two penalties, not just one.
And for @Vindog , if you're interested in the rules, I recommend that you get a copy of the Tufts book here: Principles Behind The Rules of Golf: Paperback (effective through 2018 to 2019)Its just $3 plus shipping.

[LICC]

It is in the section called "Dropped stitches", second paragraph. I quoted it word for word earlier. He doesn't say anything about honest or dishonest and I never said he did. And you keep saying you are specifically allowed to make this choice under the rules, which is incorrect in my opinion. That is the debate here. The rule requires a ball to be unplayable. The Tufts book reinforces that the determination should be based on the character of the ball's lie. The rules also require honesty. Deeming a playable lie as unplayable is somehow honest to you, and somehow consistent with the great and central principles to play the ball as it lies and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole. I'm interested to hear how you square those concepts.

[davep043]

Let's review some of the previous posts:I agree with Tufts in his book on the principles of the rules. Declaring a ball in a playable lie as unplayable is dishonest.He doesn't say anything about honest or dishonest and I never said he did.

Let me understand this, you agree with Tufts that this is dishonest, but Tufts never said it was dishonest? Which is it? Tufts specifically says the decision is completely up to the player, but you say the player is dishonest if me makes a specific decision. Was Tufts wrong, in not defining the honesty of the player?

[Hawkeye77]

Always a moving target, lol!

[LICC]

I'll clarify. I agree with Tufts in his book that it is the character of a lie which makes it unplayable. Consistent with this principle, I believe that declaring a ball in a playable lie as unplayable is dishonest.

If it were fine within the rules to declare any lie you wanted as unplayable, why would Tufts write that the character of a lie makes a ball unplayable? Why would the character of the lie matter at all if anyone could just declare any lie they wanted as unplayable?

[Vindog]

LICC = Logic Is Constantly Changing

[Sawgrass]

Speaking to everyone other than the incorrigible LICC, a quick review of the unplayable ball interpretations yields at least two inferences that one has the (honest) choice to take an unplayable ball penalty at one's whim. Note the "if the player decides that he or she cannot (OR DOES NOT WISH TO)" phrase in 19.2/1, and if you'd like more note that 19.2a/1 includes a choice to take an unplayable anywhere on the tee box (behind the specific teeing area) or past that without restriction. Not that you need to go beyond the base rule, but if you want to . . .

 

19.2/1 – No Guarantee Ball Will Be Playable After Taking Unplayable Ball ReliefWhen taking unplayable ball relief, a player must accept the outcome even if it is unfavourable, such as when a dropped

 

 ball comes to rest in its original location or in a bad lie in another location in the relief area

 

:

Once the dropped

 ball comes to rest in the relief area

, the player has a new situation.If the player decides that he or she cannot (or does not wish to) play the ball as it now lies, the player may again take unplayable ball relief, for an additional penalty, using any available relief option under Rule 19.

 

19.2a/1 – Player May Take Stroke-and-Distance Relief Even When Spot of Previous Stroke Is Nearer Hole Than Where Unplayable Ball LiesIf a ball comes to rest farther from the hole

 

 than the spot from which it was played, stroke-and-distance

 

 relief may still be taken.

Examples where stroke-and-distance

 

 relief may be nearer the hole

 

 include when:

A player’s stroke

 from the teeing area

 hits a tree, bounces backwards and comes to rest behind the teeing area

. The player may play again from the teeing area

 under penalty of one stroke.A player has a downhill putt and he or she putts off the putting green

 and the ball rolls off the green

 into a bad lie or into a penalty area

. The player may play again from the putting green

under penalty of one stroke.

 

 

[KevCarter]

It's just a silly game he's playing to keep everybody riled up and gain attention. Not sure why I jumped in again... :-)

[Newby]

You have taken the wrong principle by applying your own interpretation to Tufts.

The real principle is in what he actually wrote as opposed to what you like to think he meant

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. ie the player's opinion. not yours, mine or even a referee's

[LICC]

Interpretation 19.2/1 begins by saying "When taking unplayable ball relief, a player must accept the outcome even if it is unfavourable, such as when a dropped ball comes to rest in its original location or in a bad lie in another location in the relief area:" - the two bullet points follow from this initial statement. Also, the interpretation for 19.2a/1 gives as its second example: "A player has a downhill putt and he or she putts off the putting green and the ball rolls off the green into a bad lie or into a penalty area"

Why make references to a "bad lie" if it doesn't matter whether or not the lie is bad?

You are all contorting your ethics to justify playing contrary to the principles of the game and the honest determination of a ball being within the meaning of the word "unplayable."

[CaseyC]

"....You are all contorting your ethics to justify playing contrary to the principles of the game..."

 

Principles of the game? Such as S&D for OB and lost balls?

[LICC]

Rule Number 1, Section 1.2: Standards of Player ConductAll players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by:

Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.How can a player whose opinion is that his ball is playable honestly declare it unplayable? It is an illogical contradiction. We are debating the right of a player to have an opinion that a ball is playable but declare it unplayable anyway. I don't see how you square that with Rule Number 1, with the principles of golf, with Tuft's writing, or with basic sportsmanship.

[CaseyC]

Playing by the rules of golf is honest. Calling it dishonest is an illogical contradiction

[Newby]

Ethics is not the issue. Playing by the rules is. But to do what is fair you need to know the Rules

Your penultimate paragraph has again missed the point. Whether it is bad or not, is a judgement to be made by the player, not the book. The player may then decide 'how' bad' is bad and make a playing choice.

[DaveLeeNC]

@LICC Why make references to a "bad lie" if it doesn't matter whether or not the lie is bad?
Because they wanted to come up with an example where a legal drop might yield an unanticipated bad outcome (and they did not use the term unplayable, BTW).
dave

[LICC]

Show me the rule that says any ball regardless of lie or position can be moved via back-of-line relief. Quote the rule please.

[Vindog]

Right, but he's getting himself worked up instead. And getting complelely worked over in the process.

[davep043]

"A 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."

That's the rule, there is no limitation on lie or position, other than that it cannot be in a Penalty Area.

[Vindog]

Has anybody said that this was actually the case?

[LICC]

There is no limitation only if you disregard the word "unplayable." Which is an incredible word to disregard when reading the rule.

[nsxguy]

 

With all due respect to Albert Einstein "The definition of insanity is 2 sides arguing the same point/counterpoint over and over again, and expecting one side to "capitulate".

"The Rules say you have to play honestly.""We ARE playing honestly. We’re playing BY the Rules taking an “unplayable”.""The ball is NOT unplayable. You can hit it.""The Rules say the player is the SOLE judge of unplayable.""You CAN play it. The Rules say you have to play honestly."

"The Rules say you have to play honestly.""We ARE playing honestly. We’re playing BY the Rules taking an “unplayable”.""The ball is NOT unplayable. You can hit it.""The Rules say the player is the SOLE judge of unplayable.""You CAN play it. The Rules say you have to play honestly."

 

 

 

[KevCarter]

ROTFL

???

[Vindog]

Speaking of diregarding words. The rule say the player is allowed to TREAT his or her ball as unplayable, It doesn't say that the ball must be physically unable to be played.

[LICC]

Merriam-Webster definition of treat:  to regard and deal with in a specified manner —usually used with as. treat the matter as confidential

So you can understand, to re-phrase the rule according to the definition of "treat": A player is the only person who may decide to regard and deal with his or her ball as unplayable ...

That doesn't change the analysis whatsoever. You seem to think that because the rule gives the player the ability to decide to treat a ball as unplayable, that the player can disregard Rule 1.2 and not have to be honest in making that decision. Sorry, that isn't consistent with the principles and integrity of the game.

Despite the fact that the word "unplayable" is used ten times in the rule, you all would just ignore that word and effectively re-write the rule to be the back-of-line relief rule, whereby it just says that back-of-line penalty relief is permitted for any ball any where on the course except penalty areas. Just take any mention or meaning of the word "unplayable" out the the interpretation of the rule altogether. Again, this just doesn't make sense.

 

[Newby]

the rule gives the player the ability right to decide to treat a ball as if it were unplayable, 

[LICC]

No, the exact wording is that a player "may decide to treat his or her ball as unplayable ..."

Regardless, nothing you said absolves a player of the requirement for honesty in making that decision.