What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

If the player honestly decides.

[CaseyC]

Why would a player take a penalty stoke if they didn't genuinely believe the lie is difficult enough that they can't play it? That would be illogical....

[CaseyC]

Why would a player take a penalty stroke of they didn't genuinely believe the lie is difficult enough that they can't play it? That would be illogical

[rogolf]

Or, that the player believes that the shot from the new position is more difficult than the one from the previous position, or back-on-the-line or lateral relief - it is the player's choice.

[LICC]

It is not my scenario- others have talked about being stuck behind trees.

[LICC]

A preferred line alone is not an honest justification to treat a ball as unplayable.

[HitEmTrue]

@LICC believes if the player can safely get a club on the ball, it is playable. Even if the ball can only be advanced a few feet, or if the player believes doing so will hit it into a worse (or even impossible) position. Therefore, according to him, if the player takes a unplayable in a scenario like this, he is being dishonest, and it is a breach of Rule 1.2.

[rogolf]

But the Rules permit the player to proceed in that manner, ie, playing according to the Rules.

No response required, we've been through this earlier and are both awaiting an answer regarding "honesty" from the USGA.

[LICC]

Not exactly but about right. If a player has a good lie but feels stuck as far as having a line or position to swing at, your fallback is to take Rule 18 stroke and distance relief.

[rogolf]

The Rules provide that he can proceed under Rule 19 as well, which includes the stroke and distance option.

[nsxguy]

Hats, let me catch you up.

LICC has 2 issues. He (& a few others) don't like Stroke and Distance - they like distance only. Fortunately that argument has faded into the background.

And he calls the options for relief from a Penalty Area and hitting the ball OB "illogical" because they appear so similar,,,,,,,,, even though 1 is ON the course and the other is OFF the course, a rather important difference I think.

 

Now here's what's going on now in this ever revolving "Who's on First ?" routine.

Firstly, LICC is perturbed about the work "unplayable" and believe it is to be take literally, despite the fact that the USGA say the player is the sole judge of a ball being unplayable.

To support his argument he quotes one of the early Rules that a player must act honestly.

So, since a player CAN hit a ball yet declares it unplayable, the player is NOT being honest & therefore is violating the "act honesty" mandate.

That's the crux of the matter. I think someone suggested that the unplayable be renamed the "Replay" Rule, i.e. "at the cost a 1 penalty stroke a player may, at any time, take any of the following actions (followed by the unplayable drop options.

Anyway, that's the gist of the matter,,,,,,,,,,, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LICC]

Why would Rule 18.1 be even necessary if you have unlimited ability to use Rule 19?

[Vindog]

You don't have unlimited ability to use rule 19.

Rule 18.1 (which is what I assume you mean) defines a procedure that the player must use for OB and lost ball, and may always use (reiterated in rules 17 and 19)

 

So the scope of 18.1 goes beyond R19

[LICC]

Rule 18.1, not the whole Rule, particularly the first two bullet points, would be entirely duplicative and unnecessary if your interpretation of Rule 19 was correct.

And no, according to you there are no constraints to deciding to treat a ball not in a penalty area as unplayable and taking Rule 19 relief. That would make Rule 18.1 unnecessary.

[Vindog]

"Not in a penalty area" is the correction to the unlimited ability you mentioned.

 

As for the rest, you don't even know what you're talking about at his point, so it's not really worth responding to.

[LICC]

Typical response from someone who got caught talking nonsense. You have no answer to the Rule 18/Rule 19 conundrum to your flawed argument.

[nsxguy]

When are you going to reply to Mr Bean's post ?

[LICC]

I don’t bother with posters who constantly throw lame personal insults.

[LICC]

Impressive summary!

[Mr. Bean]

So... if someone else would ask the same questions you would answer, right?

Nsxguy, go ahead and ask him! Posts #894 and #613 and #1209.

[Mr. Bean]

In order to understand this a person needs to take a bit broader look at the Rules, just as Tuft explains in his book. There is some overlapping (i.e. duplicated) text in the Rules and for a very good reason. Rules 18.1 and 17.1d(1) are exactly the same so one might argue that one of them is not necessary (the latter as it is a special case of 18.1). However, for clarity and easier use of the Rules it is good to have all available options under each of these two Rules instead of referring to another Rule (believe me, there is enough referring in the book already as it is...). Sure, without any duplicating of any text the book would be thinner but at the same time much more difficult to study and more laborous to find conclusive guidance to various situations on the course.

Afa R19 is concerned that Rule cannot be invoked when a ball is in a Penalty Area. Thus there is a compelling need for R18.1, or R17.1d(1) for that matter. No conundrum there, none whatsoever.

[CaseyC]

Typical response from someone who got caught talking nonsense.

[sui generis]

Well, I sure wish that I'd known that earlier.

[Vindog]

I don't recall making an argument. You are though, and it's so disjointed that you can't even make any sense of it. So it's not worth responding to.

 

Hopefully 2021 goes better for you

[LICC]

You have no answer to the Rule 18.1/Rule 19 conundrum to your flawed argument.

Your scrambling around now really is just avoidance of the fact you badly lost the argument.

[Vindog]

I did not make an argument. There is no conundrum. There is no salient point worth responding to. This latest disconnected conflict of unrelated points is a dying, desperate gasp on your part because you're getting completely worked in here. And the longer it goes on, the more you are exposed for what you are, and this brings me joy.

 

 

[sui generis]

Careful, Vin, you'll send it careering off on some other worthless tangent such as how he's smarter than the USGA on the anchoring ban because of his state-of-the-art La-Z-Boy and cosmic 69" TV.

[LICC]

Those posts where you tried to support your opinion, that’s called making an argument. What you just posted above is called trying to deflect from your embarrassing losing.

[Vindog]

I did not make an opinion about your "conundrum" to be supported. It's not worth opining on, because it's a non-issue.

[sui generis]

Your style reminds me of someone . . . .