What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[davep043]

It is completely possible to put personal markings on a ball, and not have them appear in a way that can help with alignment. It could be done. In fact, I prefer not to see my markings, I basically see only white when I set up to putt.

But I see no reason require anyone to do so. If a player believes that a arc (or semicircle) of 1.68 inches or less can be positioned precisely enough, both vertically (so the semicircle appears as a straight line) and horizontally to indicate direction, let them go ahead. If the alignment is off by even 1/16" front to back, at 10 feet its aimed 2 inches outside the hole.

[HitEmTrue]

Of course it's possible to put markings on a ball and not have them help with alignment. The markings can't have any straight edges or portions? Confined to a certain percentage of golf-ball space? Some people put large, bold marks on the ball so it can easily be seen and identified no matter how it is laying in the grass. And tell the golf ball manufacture that if they right a word or words on a golf ball, that it has to be squiggly?

And I agree with your comments about accuracy. Or lack of. So I don't see any reason to change anything.

 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

I am with Dave (except that I mark my golf balls in such a way that at least one dot is visible no matter how the ball lies, just to speed up identification). And I have said this before and say it again: if using a line would be so superior to any other type of aiming everybody would use it. But they do not.

[Sawgrass]

In regard to personal markings, I'll add that it's downright useful to have them visible irrespective of the position of the ball -- to aid in quick and accurate general identification without lifting.

 

Also, I'll point out that even curved lines can help in aiming, as might be the case if you opposed two curved lines like this: )(

[farmer]

I would like free reief from boundary fences. A, all you've done is hit a ball off line, b, ours are barbed wire.

[Sean2]

That is some serious fencing!

[Sawgrass]

Buy Footjoy’s new Kevlar rain suit?

[farmer]

Sean, a rural course, cattle on two sides and the offending fence is only 15 yds left of the fairway. To the right, you can hit it 100 yds off line, no penalty other than a very awkward second shot. Prima facie discrimination for those whose miss is a little left.

[Sean2]

That is me Farmer...I usually miss left. On that hole, I would be aiming way right, lol.

Sounds like a great course though...very peaceful.

[sui generis]

I do agree with treating immovable things the same on and off the course, just as we already do with loose impediments and movable obstructions. However, in the meantime, you could define the course boundary as white stakes to the left of that hole and place the white stakes an inch on the cow side of the barbed wire fence. Now you would be entitled to relief from the fence.

[farmer]

Excellent idea-we own that acreage, so very doable. Got to engage the board, but a great idea. Would painting the outside of the posts work?

[sui generis]

That might work, but the white stakes an inch or a foot or a yard from the fence would be cleaner.

[Sawgrass]

I fear it wouldn’t work based on the following definition, but a simple statement that the ob line is one foot outside the base of the posts would:

Boundary ObjectArtificial objects defining or showing out of bounds

 

, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings, from which free relief is not allowed.

This includes any base and post of a boundary fence, butdoes not include:

Angled supports or guy wires that are attached to a wall or fence, orAny steps, bridge or similar construction used for getting over the wall or fence.Boundary objects

 

 are treated as immovable even if they are movable or any part of them is movable (see Rule 8.1a).Boundary objects

 

 are not obstructions

 

 or integral objects

 

.

 

[strug'-a-ling]

Actually, it doesn't matter. I don't enter any club events. None at all any more, actually.

I play weekday recreational and social golf with other senior members, mostly good friends.

Neither the USGA nor the R&A contributes a penny to my golf expenditures.

And my beautiful cart bag has fourteen full-length dividers PLUS a putter well.

If I enjoy golf more playing with fifteen clubs, I'd have to be a fool to NOT play with fifteen clubs.

And, were I to configure a set of clubs best suited to my game, it comes out to EXACTLY fifteen clubs.

So come April, I've got a pretty good idea that the bag I drop off in the bag room for the coming season will have fifteen clubs in it.

 

I play the ball where it lies and count my strokes pretty damned accurately .

My new wedges conform to those stupid new groove rules from 2010.

My driver's COR is in compliance as well.

If I had one rule to change, then, the logical one would be the one that, as it stands now, places me in non-compliance.

Not that I worry about it that much, now that I think about it.

 

 

[KevCarter]

Sounds like a plan. Have fun.

[antip]

Another solution to wrestling with such barbed wire during a shot is to bring the OOB line (paint or stakes) inside the barbed wire line so any ball against that fence is out of bounds. Perfectly acceptable course design feature for some holes - hit left and you get S&D. I'm not arguing that this is the right solution for this location, just noting there is more than one way to address the barbed wire constraint and most courses want to mix up the golfing challenges.

[nsxguy]

"if using a line would be so superior to any other type of aiming everybody would use it. But they do not"

That same logic was applied to the anchoring dispute. Didn't help, it was banned anyway.

[bladehunter]

We can’t use reality in this. Lol. That’s the exact analogy I’ve used.

 

Only difference is the politics. Many more use the line. The anchor was a vast minority that didn’t have enough voice to stop the ban. Yet you mention banning alignment aides and people jump up out of the woodwork.

[Mr. Bean]

Anchoring was prohibited for a valid reason, nothing similar to this discussion.

[nsxguy]

Ahhhhh,,,,,, OK

[bladehunter]

Lol. Right ?!

“ valid “ vs invalid. Hmm

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, anchoring for the purposes of making it easier to make a proper golf stroke vs using markings on a ball for the purpose of making a proper golf stroke easier seem quite similar to me.

I don't "have a dog in this hunt" (don't have a strong opinion on either topic). But they seem similar to me, in principle. And I don't object to one being OK and the other being prohibited.

dave

[Mikey5e]

Why is it that I am allowed to put magic maker lines on my golf ball but can't lay alignment sticks on the ground before I take my shot??? Talk about hypocrisy! So many golf rules, or lack of rules, are foolish.

[davep043]

You are specifically allowed, and encouraged, to mark your ball for identification purposes. Would you propose a rule to define what shape that mark can be? Please tell us how you would do that. Similarly, would you propose than manufacturers not be allowed to print any kind of linear feature on the ball? Again, please tell us how you would word that. Or perhaps you would limit how a ball could be placed in order to minimize alignment aids. Wording please? If you really think this should be done, the constructive thing is to stop whining and try to come up with something workable.

And last, please back up your assertion that alignment aids on the golf ball are both unfair, and an advantage.

[nsxguy]

Sorry my friend but your trolling can't hold a candle to "He whose name cannot be spoken"

Take some lessons. LMAO

[Mr. Bean]

The way I read the reasons given by the RBs for banning anchoring was that anchored swing was NOT a proper golf swing and as such must be considered as a breach of the existing Rules. Maybe this is just semantics but I do feel these are two very different types of issues.

[bladehunter]

Yes. But even with that they let you keep the spilt grip swing. Is that also proper ?

[davep043]

They drew a line, and that line is to some extent arbitrary. They could say that you must use the Vardon grip, not overlap, they could ban the 10-finger grip, they could (as you suggest) ban the split-hands method,they could ban anchoring against the forearm, but they chose to draw the line at anchoring against the body. To me that seems a logical place to put the line, but there's no question that the choice is a bit arbitrary. Of course, most rules have to draw a line that is to some extent arbitrary, so this one doesn't stand out based on arbitrariness.

[bladehunter]

Agree with all that. And that’s my point. You could also easily arbitrarily draw a line with alignment aides. Not nearly impossible to do. And an almost parallel to anchoring.

[Hawkeye77]

Just throwing a like in there because, as is the trend from certain folks on here courtesy of the new site, I see you got a ridiculous "abuse" flag for that. In the grand scheme of things so far those seem to say a lot more about the persons throwing them out there.

 

Every case is different and just making an observation, but not seeing a lot of difference in the nonsense Mikey is perpetuating from others who aren't allowed to post.