What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[LICC]

He is a US Open Champion, three-time WGC winner, and a golf course architect. Sure, what would he know about golf? ...

[Newby]

You wrote  "As this part of the course is specially prepared to use a putter, "

The definition says "Is specially prepared for putting",

Not the same.

 

But do you understand the hierarchical relationship between 10 & 2.1 ?

[Sawgrass]

Indeed:

 

playable adjectivecapable of or suitable for being played.

easy or pleasurable to play.

[LICC]

You don’t think people do putt with their putters?

[CaseyC]

What's it called when a people put with a wedge, or a hybrind?

[CaseyC]

United States Golf AssociationRule 14-1Using Club other than Putter on Putting Green?Q.

Is it permissible to use a club other than a putter to play a stroke on the putting green?A.

Yes, the Rules of Golf do not stipulate the type of club that must be used for making a stroke on the putting green or anyplace else on the golf course.

 

[LICC]

Why does any of this matter? It doesn’t matter what the club is. A putt is a putt, and the green is the area specially prepared for putting

[CaseyC]

So your comments about putters don't matter.

If you don't use a putter on the putting green, and you could have, is it dishonest?

[Vindog]

Neat!

 

He can do his part by designing courses with as little OB as possible, and with very little chance of losing a ball!

[Mr. Bean]

Man, you just keep on astonishing!

[sui generis]

My goal is to treat things the same everywhere, whenever possible.

Treat all stakes the same, either as MOs or IOs.

Treat IOs the same everywhere on or off the course.

[sui generis]

Is he one of those guys we see on TV who needs a referee's help to drop off a cart path? Nah, I'm not sure his opinion on Rules is compelling.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I don’t think it’s common to take an unplayable in this situation. More so just tap it to a better location, one stroke.

Unplayable is so rarely used, not sure it’s really worth all this effort arguing?

If you’re playing against someone, taking an unplayable most certainly would lose the hole.

[Sawgrass]

As I enjoy a debate that’s actually rational for a change, I will describe further why I don’t think IOs in penalty areas should be granted free relief. Frequently, a stone border around a pond would provide an opportunity that IMO is inappropriate, and worse, when a manufactured pond with a cement bottom is in play, the opportunity for free relief would be extended to any ball sitting up to an inch or so below the water level.

[Newby]

So why didn't you say that. You seem to pay a lot of attention to words and their meanings.

If you don't understand the difference in meanings in this case how can anyone have any trust in other words you use?

Shooting and foot comes to mind.

[sui generis]

I'm looking for "always" and "never" statements without too many exceptions. A concrete pond should be treated like a concrete cart path. The bridge over the creek should qualify for lie, stance or swing just like the irrigation control box.

[LICC]

You misfired here. That’s ok

[Sawgrass]

You’ve turned into a gracious old softie!

[antip]

Agree this is flawed and in need of correction. If you putt from on the green and hit another ball in play and at rest on the green that is in a different position than where it was when you struck your putt you still get 2SP. Another significant 2019 quirk is if you hit another ball the penalty only applies if that ball you struck is in play. So if it has come from another fairway you need to know whether that ball is currently in play or whether the owner has already played a substituted ball, taking the original ball out of play - with the possible penalty hanging on the answer.

[LICC]

How is the bottom of a pond an obstruction?

[Hawkeye77]

EDIT: SHALL NOT FEED!

[Sawgrass]

Isn’t there a backlog of questions you have yet to answer?

[antip]

Another route that could meet Saw's objective would be to declare that any artificial object within a PA that is immovable is an integral object.

[LICC]

No.

How is the bottom of a pond an obstruction?

[Sawgrass]

I suspect Sui will soon be doing away with integral objects in the name of consistency. (I’m not saying I couldn’t live with it, but . . .)

[LICC]

But that wouldn’t always be the case. However I do agree with your line of thought here. Permanently designed objects meant to be part of the challenge of the course should be integral objects.

[sui generis]

You suspect correctly. I'm after less fine print . . . not more.

ps Doing away with yellow stakes, too.

[antip]

But that wouldn’t always be the case.

Why not?

[LICC]

If the object wasn’t meant to be part of the challenge of the course. A maintenance tractor left in the PA, or a shed or something similar.

[antip]

None of those immovable examples get relief in PAs now, nor should they IMO. If a Committee decides they don't want such objects to be part of the challenge of playing the course, I don't believe they should be put in a PA (the tractor case) or have a PA marked around them (the shed case).