What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[deadsolid...shank]

That all makes sense Augster, and seems reasonable. But it’s just a concept that seems so wrong to me. Even though there are ample times it is allowed, to me the most basic tenet of the game is “play it as you find it”. While I know there is a multitude of reasons that isn’t always true, I just can’t wrap my head around full time LCP. Rolling it all the time just screams hacker golf to me (I apologize in advance as I know someone will be offended by the term hacker).

[LICC]

If play it as you find it is so important, shouldn’t you be against treating playable balls as unplayable?

[Newby]

LICC has just tried again

[DaveLeeNC]

 

And guess what - he tried to raise the unplayable lie issue again (in the context of divots and relief).

Slow learner, I think.

dave

[LICC]

Or someone who doesn’t take unexplainable hypocritical positions ...

[Sawgrass]

HaHa . . . wonder how that call to the USGA is going . . .

[Hawkeye77]

I think the reason as a concept it may seem wrong is that it really isn't reasonable? That may be what is giving you pause because Augster's argument boiled down to its core is simply if it is a rule of golf that most golfers violate then just define the behavior as legal. That is more than a little unsettling in the "play it as it lies" tradition of the game, IMO. You can do it that way, but it affects the traditional integrity of the game and the rules.

 

They don't play LCP all that often on the PGA Tour. If it is a rule in a tournament play it - that's the rule. Go for it.

 

Guys I play with in "casual" rounds give and take putts. No point getting into whether it's 6 inches or a foot or two feet or where it goes from there, it happens. I give putts if they are darn close, usually take them in outings with my friends.

 

BUT, because most recreational players aren't listening to hear their ball hit the bottom of the cup should we legislate that, for example, anything within "x" feet is "good"? -- nope, but that's not an unreasonable extension/result of the argument for simply legislating LCP in any fairway.

 

Anyway, that's more my issue with it as I see it, but I think the reason the concept he expressed may give anyone pause is because, IMO, it should!

[rogolf]

Play however you wish to play, but don't expect the Rules to change to the way you choose to play. Please leave the Rules of the game to those who have the requisite knowledge - the Ruling Bodies.

[Newby]

So you managed to read it? It didn't appear when I opened the thread

[DaveLeeNC]

I get email notifications from this thread. And when LICC posts, those are sent out (to me, anyway). And maybe there is a short window where they show up on the board as well - not sure.

dave

[Sawgrass]

I have to say that this whole "semi-banishment" thing is confusing to me. I can't help but wonder what the specifics are, and what the purpose is.

[Newby]

I don't opt for notifications but I think, as you say, there is moment when his name appears on the thread as latest post

[Hawkeye77]

Not really wanting to get into monitoring, lol, but I think if he "likes" a post, for example, the new site may show that as a visit and the avatar appears, which didn't happen with the old site. That's my educated guess.

[Mr. Bean]

I heard he ran out of coins while waiting.

[sui generis]

As troublesome and annoying as he was, I'll have to say that he managed, at times, to bring out the worst in us. My New Year's resolution is to try to not rise to the bait in future.

[KevCarter]

I'll do my best to follow your lead Sui...

[Sawgrass]

Too bad, I kind of liked you the way you were.

 

[sui generis]

Oh, all right, you win. New Year's resolutions are for mugs anyway. ?

[Sean2]

The USGA should read this thread...give them a good idea what the passionate golfer thinks.

[LICC]

Maybe they did and that’s why my comments were removed! Eradicate the history, call the lawyers ...

[Vindog]

In other forums they call it "tachy." Nobody can see what is posted but the user can still lurk on the forums. My opinion is that since it is an administrative move, maybe we should just leave it alone.

[HitEmTrue]

”Likes” don’t change the avatars on the forum listing. He has made posts that many/most people can’t see. Whether or not the posts remain, I have no idea. Hey @LICC give me a like if your posts are still visible. :)

( edit )
Yesterday, saw the trailer for the new Invisible Man movie. He’s terrorizing this woman....everyone thinks she’s going crazy...and she’s trying to prove that he’s really alive. And invisible.

[James the Hogan Fan]

I don't mean to be to snippy, but the whole point of this thread is changes someone would like to see. (That and LICC's General Custer maneuver) That may involve the legalization of some illegal behavior someone employs now, it may make the game easier or even undermine the "logic" of the game up to now.

Auguster here actually phrased a reasonable, nonconfrontational, polite argument. Coming back with "don't talk about changing the rules because you aren't the ruling bodies" kinda defeats the whole purpose of the thread. Especially 1 year after those same ruling bodies actually changed a number of longstanding rules...

[Mr. Bean]

There, you got you like. Now what?

[Sawgrass]

For the last time, no one objected to LICC's preferences. His repeated admonitions that his preferences were the only logical analysis was annoying, but his accusations that people who took an unplayable penalty at their whim were dishonest was absolutely abhorrent. In my book, not a "reasonable, non-confrontational, polite argument." (Presumably, someone with authority had some critical view of at least something he said, somewhere as well.)

I sense that you agree with him, at least in part. No worries, good for you, you've got every right to be heard.

[Sawgrass]

Awesome! Nice way to put it to the test!

[LICC]

You consider it abhorrent because you disagree. Plain and simple.

Have you ever taken a ball that you perfectly well could have played and picked it up and took back on line relief? What were the circumstances? If not, then it isn’t an issue. I doubt many of the people here arguing for it have ever even done it.

[James the Hogan Fan]

This comment was in response to Rogolfs dismissal of Auguster's idea. I will edit it to this effect.

As for LICC, I stopped paying attention. The OB thing is what it is. You could play it identically to a red penalty area if you wanted, make the game a tinge easier, and life would go on. You could leave it as it is now.

As far as the unplayable ball thing. My thought has always been an 'unplayable ball' is convenient shorthand for 'the outcome of any shot may be erased if the player is willing to add a stroke and go back to where he hit the shot from' and I have never really associated the unplayable ball rule with the physical playability of the ball. I usually think of all penalty relief as costing the stroke you would have 'made' to magically rescue your ball from where it is to where your relief area happens to be.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Since LICC can Like posts in this thread, this is how he can communicate with us. We can set up a code where a 'Like' on a post is a '1' and not liking a post is a '0'. We could allocate 5 or 6 bits to a 'byte' which would represent a letter and a few other select targets. 5 bits would give you 32 different options.

Then LICC could start at the top of this thread and start to Like or not Like posts, 5 or 6 at a time (depending on how clever you want to be with the encoding). And then we could all just scan the posts for Like and not Liked posts, decode the results, and LICC can talk to us again.

Easy Peasy.

dave

ps, This is a joke and not an attempt to bring LICC back into this thread..

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Kind of like this Dave...