What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

Now, I would agree with all of this, particularly the sportsmanship part, IF the relief were free. But it comes at the cost of one stroke.

 

So in my view I don't exactly see how the field would be hurt, or how the player might gain an advantage by taking a stroke penalty rather than try to advance the ball. But that's just my opinioin

[Vindog]

But it only amounts to not wanting to take the penalty. There is no other betterment to the game to be gained, imo, just dilution.

[davep043]

"And since you missed it, the Tufts book, Principles Behind the Rules of Golf, states: "It is, of course, expected that the reader will appreciate it is the condition of his ball that makes it 'unfit for play' and the character of its lie that makes it 'unplayable.'""

I'm glad you finally helped me find this quote. Tufts is discussing Rules that are easy enough to figure out without his guidance, and is using Rule5-3 to illustrate a very clear definition of a ball that is "unfit for play". The line you quote is a bit of a throwaway, talking about the difference between the condition of the ball itself, and the situation that the ball is resting in. And somehow you use that quote to suggest that Tufts agrees with you, that to take relief under (new) Rule 19 when a ball can actually be struck is somehow "dishonest". That's obviously a complete distortion.

You would do well to read Chapter 10, talking about one stroke penalties, and why they're logical. In that section, Tufts was right in that "unplayable" is pretty much impossible to define. Sure, the lie of the ball could make it impossible to strike it with a legitimate swing, your personal definition. Or it could be surrounded by brambles, so that you COULD get there and swing, but there's no way the ball would move far enough to do any good. Or the ball is deep in the woods, with no clear avenue to hit a shot into a more playable location (specifically mentioned by Tufts). Or its conceivable that the only possible direction to play the shot would force you to hit into a penalty area. Every one of those is unplayable in its own way. Again as Tufts describes, it was important to make the penalty severe enough that a player wouldn't invoke relief frivolously, But there's never a mention of honesty in invoking the rule and accepting the penalty.

You should also read the chapter called Random Review. The point is made that the Rules have to work with one another as a whole, and because of that an individual rule may seem unfair or even illogical. The point is also made that those who really disagree with individual rules are who are new to the game, or who have only had experience from the playing side, who have never had the task of writing rules, and making sure they all work together. I'd say that describes every "reference" you've used to try to prop up your opinions. If you want to use Tufts as a reference, you should be prepared to accept Tufts when he disagrees with you.

[LICC]

You are assuming the illogical penalties are in place. That is rigged reasoning. In the physical environment, you have a tee box, you have a playable area, and you have a green. Both shots missed the playable area. Both balls are now in locations that cannot physically be played. Equally bad.

[LICC]

The player is allowed to move his ball to his preferred position, instead of trying to execute the shot to get there.

[Vindog]

And it costs you a stroke to put it there. Remember that this "preferred location" is never closer to the hole, is within 2cl radius or is going back in the wrong direction. Most players know that it is not a great course of action, due to the penalty vs reward.

[Maton12]

 

They know how to post, it's just that they realise nobody is changing anybody's view.

If you're a good player, you want everyone penalised. But if you're average you get penalised for hitting OB, when a red stake would still be a penalty and the game moves on. Otherwise, there will always be that extra bit of searching for an OB ball (yeah we know it's been reduced to three minutes), cause it's another penalty when having to play your fourth from wherever the provisional ball has landed.

 

[Sawgrass]

There is no debate that the S&D penalty is very much unliked by some people. Not too many years ago the USGA presented a survey indicating that it was the most unliked of all the rules. (Well, one rule had to be the most unliked!)

The fact that S&D is somewhat controversial should not lead the rational person to the conclusion that the rule is illogical. It's not, it's a preference. A preference that the greatest rules experts in the game, on both sides of the pond, and after much consideration, endorse.

If LICC would not insist that he's cornered the logic market, and would simply acknowledge that he simply prefers something else, this thread wouldn't be killing so many innocent electrons by going on and on about the same thing. Maybe we could get to some other rational preference about some other rule change.

[Newby]

The idea of just dropping a ball as near as possible to the point where it went out and add the penalty stroke would never be seen over here.

Stableford - pick up and move on, medal - provisional or go back, casual groups - pick up and move on.

I just attended a drinks party with two past presidents of England Golf and two past Walker Cup players. They saw no justification for dropping S&D.

But just adding names to a list doesn't make your case any more logical

 

[Sawgrass]

Who wants a lower score? Raise your hands!

[Vindog]

Three scenarios in the Physical environment:

A player slices one short of the pond but in an unplayable position at the bottom of casual water, or even embedded, and is allowed free relief

B player hits it further, but unplayable into the bottom of a pond, or even embedded within the PA, and must take 1PS relief

C player Hooks it OB, unplayable in abutting property. Must proceed under S&D

 

All 3 are physically unplayable, and I know why they are treated differently, yet I've never heard anyone lobby for player A to take a penalty stroke for relief, because of logic. Nor have I heard anyone say that PA relief shoud be free, just because casual water relief is free, because of logic. I wonder why that is.

 

People accept the definitions of the areas for the first 2, but not the third. It's all very weird

[LICC]

But it takes away the requirement to execute the shot. Obviously.

[LICC]

Noted that you believe that Sam Snead, Geoff Ogilvy and the past President of the ASGCA are irrational people.

[Vindog]

At the cost of a stroke. It's not free, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

[LICC]

Really? You don’t understand that dropping the ball where you want it is less risky than trying to hit it to the same spot?

[DaveLeeNC]

Given that there are a lot of smart people who have differing views, from your perspective are everyone of those irrational people?

dave

[Vindog]

Who said I don't understand it? You pay for avoiding the risk, and I'm okay with that. Much of the time the relief area isn't that great, and the actual drop isn't always favorable.

[CaseyC]

 

wow..

Do you believe all the pros, and those at the USGA and R&A who agree with S&D are irrational people?

[CaseyC]

Why would one hit to the drop point? That's irrational...

[LICC]

I’m not the one calling people irrational.

[LICC]

Either way you have a stroke added to your score. With one, you have to hit the ball. With the other, you drop it.

[LICC]

I agree but people here are saying they are behind a wall of trees so they have to take back on line relief.

[Vindog]

It's true. Which is why waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy back in the thread I said that most players understand that trying to advance the ball (if you can) is much better than taking unplayable lie relief, most of the time.

[CaseyC]

That still doesn't make any sense

[DaveLeeNC]

Then I misunderstood the thinking behind your statement "Noted that you believe that Sam Snead, Geoff Ogilvy and the past President of the ASGCA are irrational people."

dave

[Mr. Bean]

Did you need re-sloping? Changing OB's into lateral PA's may require that.

[Mr. Bean]

I'd prefer scoring lower by playing better, not by changing the Rules.

[Mr. Bean]

What thinking?

[LICC]

More likely that most people don’t want to bother with the temper tantrum attacks that you get from the groupthink crowd here. One person posted yesterday disagreeing with the S&D OB penalties, @davep043 responded with a respectful post disagreeing, and then within 15 minutes three immature snarky responses went after him. I mentioned earlier that I’ve gotten private messages commending my picking you guys apart in the debate on this thread.

[LICC]

The benefit is fairer scoring to match the play involved. One bad swing that results in a ball being gone should lead to one penalty. Under my proposal, if I hit a good ball off the tee and my opponent hits one OB or in a pond, I should be one stroke better than him at that point, and I am also already better positioned for the next shot as he will either have to hit again from the tee and have to execute a good shot to get to an equally good position as me, or he is dropped on the side off the fairway. I don’t deserve to be two shots better than him right off of our first swings because he hit one bad shot.