What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[CaseyC]

His illogical inconsistencies in his arguments are logical...

[Newby]

He is just being consistent

[KevCarter]

I agree Hale.

I once took an unplayable from the middle of the fairway in a divot. I had hit a perfect layup to 100 yards to an elevated, small green. The ball was so deep, I felt if I tried to move it forward, I would either shank it into the lake to the right, or best case just leave a more difficult distance where I couldn't spin it. I may have been able to gouge it either backwards or to my left, but why? Knowing the rules I took an unplayable dropping within 2 club lengths. If the rule wasn't written as it is now, would I have had to wait for a ruling to take an unplayable with a one shot penalty?

This whole conversation is ridiculous, the rules specifically say the rule is available anywhere at the player's whim.

[Sawgrass]

Don't be silly, of course the playability of the ball has relevance. While the relevance needs only be established in the player's mind, he/she wouldn't take a penalty if he/she liked the playability for their next shot.

[Newby]

LICC

Are you deliberately not responding to my questions?

See #1422

[Sawgrass]

Why are you resisting answering a simple question? This isn't a child's picture book where illustrations are important. Just tell us where you'd drop.

[Londoner]

A certain person would call you dishonest (probably not to your face).

[KevCarter]

?

All we can do is laugh, the thoughts and words from Rules Officials around the world have no meaning to him. Just like a little kid wanting attention.

I'm a little embarrassed to have played his game for 50 pages!

[Sawgrass]

While I easily see the logic behind your position, I prefer to continue to prevent players from taking relief from immovable objects that are out of bounds, particularly boundary objects. To me, it adds to the danger of hitting a ball out of bounds in that even close to OB can be a problem.

An extension of this consistency issue would be allowing free relief from obstructions in penalty areas, a change which I also wouldn't like.

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’m not siding with anyone here, but there’s an internal OB here.

[sui generis]

I suspect that this whole exception is in there to protect the Road Hole. :)

[LICC]

They are not stuck. They have Rule 18.1 to fall back on. If you want Rule 19 to be the Replay Rule instead of the Unplayable Ball rule, then lobby the USGA to change the rule.

[LICC]

I accept different treatment if there are logical justifiable reasons for them. Purposely designed different playing surfaces warrant different treatment. Balls lost in a pond v OB do not.

[CaseyC]

That's illogical, but feel free to lobby the USGA for the rule change

[Halebopp]

You are grossly mistaken if you think I want anything regarding Rules 18 and 19 changed - at least with regard to subject matters brought forward in this thread.

[Sawgrass]

Hey, good hole.

[Sawgrass]

Yeah, lobby them during your upcoming "honesty" telephone call.

[Mr. Bean]

I'm in for the change of turning objects off the course into obstructions but moving white stakes is a dubious thing as it sure makes a difference whether a ball is on or off the course and replacing an OB stake carelessly may mean 2 strokes more or less to a player. A better option is to declare those white stakes as immovable obstructions.

[LICC]

I don’t know what you mean when you say the ball was so deep

[LICC]

Not according to people here. They say the ball can be perfectly playable but you don’t like the line so you can tack back on line relief.

[KevCarter]

Edited.

I once took an unplayable from the middle of the fairway in a divot.

[rogolf]

Yes, that is what the Rules say, and that's why we say it. In Sawgrass' statement, I'm certain that the "playability" he refers to includes the line of play, not just the lie of the ball.

[sui generis]

OB stakes as IOs is fine, too. That works best if we do the same with red and yellow ones. And, over Saw's objection allow IO relief everywhere.

Of course, with 2019 lumping IO relief into ACCs we'd have to separate them out again.

[LICC]

So if there are two lines of play and one is blocked and you just don’t like the other one, you think it is honest to call that unplayable. That is contrary to the plain reading of the rules.

[CaseyC]

It is not contrary to the plain reading of the rules.

[LICC]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Mr. Bean]

'That works best if we do the same with red and yellow ones'

That would be problematic as currently there is no free relief from an IO when the ball is in a PA. I would keep all other stakes as it is today (MO's) and only define white stakes as IO's anywhere on or off the course. Quite simple.

[Newby]

Well, primarily that you purported to quote words from the rules but they are manifestly wrong and change the meaning of the definition. Not very honest.

[Newby]

[LICC]

What the bloody blazes are you talking about?