What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[sui generis]

I will say, that's one of the three changes I could embrace. The more we treat things the same everywhere, the fewer traps we set for players.

For example, in 2019 we suddenly got to treat a loose impediment pretty much the same not only in the five defined areas of the course but off the course as well.

Let's treat white stakes the same way we treat red and yellow ones.

Let's treat off-course immovable objects the same way we treat on-course immovable obstructions.

[Newby]

You are twisting words which are very specifically written for a purpose. Where do the rules say that putting can only be done with a putter?

[davep043]

Players can chip when their ball is on the green too. Players have used wedges and woods and hybrids to roll the ball on the green, as well as from off the green. Its basically two identical situations, differently defined parts of the golf course, so different rules.How about 200 yards away in the fairway? In fact, why not in the entire General Area, rough, woods, pine straw, everywhere? The only difference lies with the definition of those areas in the rules, and the differing rules applied to differing areas.

[KevCarter]

I agree, but presently fences defining out of bounds are not obstructions.

[sui generis]

A fence on the course is an "obstruction."

A fence off the course is an "object".

Both are still fences, so why not treat them the same?

After all, we can carefully move that nuisance pine cone anywhere on or off the golf course.

[LICC]

A ball that can’t be played in a PA is just like a ball OB.

[KevCarter]

I agree, but presently fences defining out of bounds are not obstructions.

[davep043]

I'm with you, in that I liked the increased consistency in the 2019 rules. The one thing I wish had remained consistent was the extremely limited value of intent, its not been expanded, (ball hitting player or equipment, movement of ball on putting green, movement of ball when searching) but its not universal.

[davep043]

And a ball that can be putted from off the green is just like a ball that can be putted from on the green.

[LICC]

Why would anyone want to use their putter 200 yards away in the fairway?

[LICC]

It is not identical because in one the playing surface is specially prepared for putting, and the other it is not.

[LICC]

I 100% support you on this.

[CaseyC]

except one is on the course and one isn't.

A ball in the General Area is just like a ball on the Putting green.

[davep043]

So we should have different rules for the rough versus the fairway? The fairway is specially prepared, yet the rules are the same.

[LICC]

And I never said they presently are.

[LICC]

Except that distinction is irrelevant, and one on an internal OB is on part of the course.

The balls are just like each other but the playing surfaces are not.

[CaseyC]

The distinction isn't irrelevant.

[DaveLeeNC]

So it would seem the a ball in a PA is SOMETIMES just like a ball OB. Which also says that a ball in a PA is sometimes NOT just like a ball OB. Heck, there are rare occasions where a ball in the fairway is unplayable in your sense of the word (typically relief being provided in those cases).

That does not demand that they be treated differently (logically), but it surely indicates that treating them differently is hardly illogical.

dave

[LICC]

The rules contemplate and allow this for embedded balls. Different rules for fairway vs rough.

[sui generis]

My second wish would be to get rid of this annoying bit of R11.1a:"Exception – Ball Played on Putting Green in Stroke Play: If the player’s ball in motion hits another ball at rest on the putting green  and both balls were on the putting green  before the stroke, the player gets the general penalty (two penalty strokes)."https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=11&subrulenum=1

[davep043]

That's not true, the embedded ball rules applies in the entire General Area.

[CaseyC]

Different rules for OB and PA

[sui generis]

Prior to 2019 the words "except" and "exception" occurred too often in the Rules. Amazingly, in 2019 there were even MORE uses of those darn words. (I don't recall the totals but prior to 2019 it was around 180 and after something like 250.)

I continue to like the 2019 emphasis on "accidental" vs "deliberate."

[LICC]

Come on, you should know better. The rules allow for a local rule for different treatment in rough v fairway.

[davep043]

He accepts the different rules for certain different defined areas, but not for others. completely inconsistent, if not illogical.I see, so you'd accept a local rule requiring Stroke and Distance relief for OB? You DO realize that there's a Model Local Rule that reduces the severity of the penalty for a ball OB, right?

[KevCarter]

"Those are OB fence obstruction questions."

[nsxguy]

{never mind}

[LICC]

I said those were OB fence obstruction QUESTIONS. And I would support a CHANGE (thus, not presently the rule), for OB fence obstructions.

[Halebopp]

Because there doesn't need to be and isn't any relevance. I like the fact people aren't stuck in horrible lies for the rest of their lives just because it's possible to deliver the club to the ball. Nor do I have issues with people who want to take a drop for an unplayable lie in the middle of the fairway and take the one-stroke penalty with it. For that price I'm perfectly happy with allowing them to change the ball too.

 

It only becomes an issue if the player is playing a qualifying round and is trying to sandbag with such moves. But that's a whole different issue.

[nsxguy]

LOL There ya go again, "I said OB fence obstruction questions". Yes, that IS what you said but heck, I'm no English major but without the slash it's "OB fence obstruction". Presently, the OB fences are NOT obstructions.

Since you are so focused on the meaning of words (when it suits your purposes of course, not so much when it doesn't) the first part should have had the slash, a minor mistake(?) but the 2nd part should have said something like "And I would support a change to defining OB fences AS obstructions".

But then maybe that just depends on what the meaning of "is" is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,