What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[davep043]

It all makes me wonder, are there any other choices that a player is specifically authorized to make under the rules, but to make one of those choices is unethical and a violation of Rule 1.2?

[Hawkeye77]

Cannot play or does not wish to play aren't mutually exclusive and "does not wish" is about as permissive as you can get, IMO.

[Vindog]

That's your spin on it. But again you're wrong.

 

It's been a tough 2020 for you so far

[Hawkeye77]

"may decide to treat" "does not wish to play"

 

Nothing more needed and honesty has nothing to do with it.

 

Totally within any player's discretion to so decide/declare, or frankly, any player's whim. Whatever the "difficulty" is, is left up to the player's subjective opinion.

[LICC]

Not according to any intelligent reading of the rules, general and central principles of golf, Tuft's statement in the Principles book, or basic sportsmanship.

[davep043]

He did have a point, actually. The Rule could have been written to allow a player to take lateral relief, stroke and distance relief, or back on the line relief, anywhere on the golf course, at the golfer's discretion, without ever mentioning the "unplayable" word. I think that would have been extremely confusing, to completely eliminate the "unplayable ball" terminology from the rules, but it wouldn't change the effect of the rules at all.

[LICC]

Rule 18 already covers S&D relief. Why would a rule that allows back on the line relief be confusing? Lateral relief is covered in the PA and OB rules. It would be just like Rule 18 except for back on line relief. It is how you are interpreting (misinterpreting in my view) the rule anyway.

If the USGA wanted the unplayable ball relief to not require an honest determination of the playability of the ball, it could have just copied Rule 18 for back on line relief (excluding penalty areas).

[Mikey5e]

I think with all the debating and bickering back and forth the general consensus is that most people would like to see some changes made to the stroke and distance rule. what I am reading is that an OB shot should be treated like a hazard. I think most people realize that this would be a very good thing for the governing bodies to act upon.

[Hawkeye77]

Speaking of "treat" - the little fella at 8 weeks having a "treat". Although it is a different definition - he is free to drink or not to drink without any subjective inferences about his ethics or honesty attaching - in a way, this cute little guy "lives" an understanding of discretion that some humans simply can't comprehend. Then again, he is one smart pup!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

'Again, this just doesn't make sense.'

Well, not to you but to everyone else. Why do you think that is so?

Oh my, this is just so much fun!!

[davep043]

I think if you base your evaluation on the responses in this forum, you;'d see that most people think stroke and distance is just fine. There are some who believe it should change, but those are a minority. Your buddies may agree with you, but quite possibly not the remainder of the golfing world.

[Mr. Bean]

Dave was just too kind in his response but I am not. How on earth did you come to that solution? I may have missed some posts but afa I can remember there are less than five (5) posters suggesting what you are suggesting.

Btw, did you read the post where the Ruling Bodies' pondering over the issue of S&D was quoted? Maybe you should.

[DaveLeeNC]

@LICC here is an idea for you.
The next time that you are in a 'formal' match play event (by that I mean a real committee that is on site to make decisions) and your opponent tries to take unplayable ball relief on a ball that obviously could be struck, challenge him on the basis Rule 1.2 saying he must hit the ball because it is not unplayable. Try that with me and ...
... Assume that I decide to declare a ball unplayable and move it back on a ball-flat line 10 feet because that is my best play (not because I cannot hit the ball). Here is how it would go if you did this with me as your opponent.
Dave: I am taking unplayable lie relief and a stroke
LICC: Rule 1.2 requires that you play the ball because it is playable,, so you cannot do that
Dave: I am now going to play my shot after taking 1 stroke and relief (and I would proceed to address the ball, wondering who this idiot is, BTW)
Now if you say ONE MORE word then we ARE going to the committee after the round and I am going to complain that you were intentionally making noises while I played my shot by spouting gibberish that made no sense. And depending on how long you continued to spout that gibberish, a DQ is quite possible.
Do you really think that there is a committee anywhere in this world that would think that you were trying to have a reasoned rules discussion with me about rules that actually matter in this case? If you presented to them what you have presented to us as your defense, do you really think that would help your case? Oh - I forgot. Only you really know how to properly interpret the RoG.
dave

[Hawkeye77]

Hahahahaha, that's what you get Dave for throwing him a bone (I know you wouldn't put it that way)!

[Hawkeye77]

Although I don't think it is necessary from any plain current or relevant historical reading of the rule and decisions/interpretations, a simple definition of "unplayable" wouldn't have done any harm in the ROG, IMO.

 

But again, it's a pretty easy and basic concept.

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

Disagree with "most" in terms of golfers who appreciate the rules. Beyond that it's Dodge City anyway and who cares if you shoot 82 instead of 81? Keep your ball within the boundaries of the course.

 

[LICC]

More people who have agreed with my position that the OB penalties should be changed:

Sam Snead - "Bad. The worst thing in golf is to miss the ball completely, but the penalty is only one stroke. Many courses are surrounded by homes. It's too easy to drive a couple out of bounds. Then you might as well go home. A better rule is to lose only your distance."

Cary Middlecoff - "On a golf course like this one [Oak Hill in Rochester] the rule is okay, but I don't like it on courses where they have too many out-of-bounds, say eight or 10. You make a lot of good shots that can go out of bounds on that kind of course. It's too big a penalty."

[LICC]

The Committee would no doubt agree that you took a dishonest approach to the rule.
And here is another person who agrees with me on OB, Rick Robbins, ASGCA Past President:
"The most penal rule in golf – the “stroke and distance” penalty where the player hitting his ball out-of-bounds (or lost) must replay the shot from the original spot and add a stroke to the score has now evolved into a much more prevalent part of the game. For most golfers, this is roughly the same as adding two strokes to their score because they also lose whatever distance they would have gained from the point where they played to where the ball crossed the out-of-bound’s line. 
If I am on the tee and there is a lateral hazard running along the left side and housing along the right side, why should I receive a far greater penalty for hitting my shot out-of-bounds to the right than I would for hitting it into the lateral hazard to the left? In the one case, I must replay another shot from the tee where I will then be hitting my third shot (assuming I declare the shot a provisional ball) but had I pulled the same shot to the left and it crossed the hazard 200 yards toward the green, I would also be playing my third shot but at 200 yards closer to the hole. Is one shot a worse offence than the other?
This is so illogical to the general golfing public that it has become a rule that is probably ignored more often than it is enforced in average weekend golf groups. ... If a player hits one OB, they just drop a ball as near as possible to the point where it went out and add the penalty stroke. ...Rick Robbins, ASGCA, has been a golf course architect for 43 years and an avid golfer for over 50 years. He’s a past president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects and has high regard for the ruling bodies of golf."
Wow @davep043 , the Past President of the ASGCA says you guys are illogical ...

[Mr. Bean]

'The Committee would no doubt agree that you took a dishonest approach to the rule.'

This is ever so hilarious!!! :DDDD

[KevCarter]

Now that's entertainment!!! :-)

[rogolf]

Below is from post 1009 in my response to you. Have you submitted this question to the USGA yet?

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]

[Londoner]

Im sure his buddies would say ANYTHING just to make him stop.?

[LICC]

I did. I got an automated response that they are dealing with high volumes of requests due to the rules changes.

[LICC]

You guys really are in your own bubbles. You make it sound like I'm some lone voice with a unique uninformed view and you elitists shouldn't be questioned about this. I've posted established writers, players, legendary players, and now a past President of the ASGCA who agree with me and disagree with you. The past President of the ASGCA even said the OB rule in conjunction with the water hazard rule is "illogical"! Yet nothing phases you all. Instead of saying "hmm, maybe there is an inconsistency here that is problematic or at least unhelpful, and maybe the penalties are severe all things considered and don't match well, and maybe a very large percentage of golfers don't respect this rule, and maybe we should keep thinking about a better way to go about this," you all just keep hammering away the same responses over and over. If you think the thousands of people who have read the comments on this discussion side with your opinions, I would guess otherwise.

[Londoner]

It's unfortunate that those thousands who agree with you don't know how to post.

[CaseyC]

:You guys really are in your own bubbles."

"you all just keep hammering away the same responses over and over."

ROTFLMAO....

[KevCarter]

You do realize there was a big change in the rules last year allowing committees to mark areas that are devoid of water, formerly marked as OB, as penalty areas? They can even make them into no play zones so you aren't hitting out of the neighbors yard. That accomplishes your goal. You don't need to change the world, just get your home club to consider making a change to boundaries you feel are unfair and see if it gains traction. I did this with many boundaries at my club last year in an attempt to speed play and my players enjoyed the changes.

[HatsForBats]

LICC quoted: 'Is one shot a worse offence than the other?'

 

Undoubtedly one shot is worse than the other IMO. Most often either a player made a mental mistake and did not err more towards the 1-stroke penalty side versus the 2-stroke penalty side or they made the strategic adjustment and hit a much worse shot. Either way they deserve a larger penalty in my book.

 

I agree a lot of weekend warriors play it as a 1-stroke & no loss of distance penalty. They are the least concerned with uniform rules and least likely to want to take the time to actually learn and benefit from the rules. They should mostly be a non-factor in consideration of the rules IMO. However, these are desperate times and as with anything entities tend to make bad decisions when desperate so you never know.

 

Just because you found someone 'in the know' to agree with your point of view doesn't do much to back your argument. Pick almost any subject in the world and you can find 'leading experts' that disagree. I disagree with him/you here and also disagree with him that it would be a time saver. Players would still use the full 5 minutes (the article is from 2017) to search for the ball. Players are also more likely to be 'in pocket' once they pop one OB and it is a 2-stroke penalty versus a 1-stroke penalty which in my experience speeds up play. The new 2019 optional OB/Lost Ball rule also helps with speed of play in my experience.

[LICC]

Undoubtedly one shot is worse than the other?? You made that statement but provided no reasoning to support it.

Undoubtedly one shot is not worse than the other. Both missed the fairway and any playable area and both resulted in an end point that is not playable. From the standpoint of hitting your ball to get to the hole, both shots are equally bad.

[HatsForBats]

Nope. They are not equally bad shots.

 

Player A - Makes a mental mistake and doesn't adjust their aim for a 2-stroke penalty versus a 1-stroke (ie. in this case they should be erring towards the right side more than the left). If they knock it OB left then they made a large, easily avoidable, mental mistake.

 

Player B - Makes the strategic adjustment and errs towards the right side but makes an even worse shot than Player A pulling the ball even further off their intended path and OB to the left.

 

Player C - Makes the strategic adjustment and errs towards the right side but hits it a little more wayward to the right than usual and ends up in the 1-stroke penalty error to the right.

 

Player C made much less of a mental and/or execution mistake and deserves to be penalized less than the players that made bigger mistakes. They are not even close to being equally bad shots.