What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[davep043]

How would you do it? I asked Mikey earlier, but I'm guessing he won't answer. Would you limit the types of markings we are allowed to apply? Would you prohibit manufacturers from marking their product with any kind of linear marking, including their own name? Would you prohibit the player from placing his ball in certain positions? I don't think its that easy to write an appropriate rule. And to be fair, I've said before, I don't think that the alignment lines on the ball are particularly effective, and I don't see a need to eliminate them, but I'm more than happy to discuss how if could effectively be done.

[Mikey5e]

Simple, make a USGA rule saying that alignment marks are not allowed on golf balls for competition, period. The human mind is pretty sharp and can interpret and enforce Such a demand. I don't think the idea that something can't be done is a very productive attitude. As far as manufacturers and the lines they print on golf balls, they could continue to do it if they choose but with the knowledge that such marks and or lines on golf balls will not be allowed in competition. You would see them change really quick because things can be done if people want them to be done. Again what is the difference between an alignment aid on a golf ball and an alignment aid on the ground? They both aid in helping a golfer's direction. You know it to be true, it won't hurt you to admit it, so man up and just admit it that they both aid in a golfer's alignment of their shot. We shouldn't change a USGA rule that needs to be changed because of the poor golf ball manufacturers?

[Sawgrass]

Please write a sentence or two which you propose for eliminating certain marks on golf balls. Or state that you’d like them to be completely blank. I’ll be happy to logically tear apart either.

Then we’ll get to the topic of your alignment aid on the ground, and its surrounding issues.

 

[Sawgrass]

Oh, and stop with the false distinction between rules that should apply to a competition and any other round. It’s all golf, and there is no compelling reason to segregate the rules.

[HitEmTrue]

 

What exactly are you wanting changed in the rules?

A) Disallow marks on golf balls that may be used in alignment. I guess Bridgestone wouldn't be able to print the word "Bridgestone" on their golf balls any more.

B) Allow the player to put alignment aids on the ground.

 

[bladehunter]

Absolutely agree.

 

And afterall . The subject of this thread is rules you’d like to change. Folks here act as if it’s somehow sacrilege to discuss that topic. And are fighting tooth and nail to shut down anyone who will bite back. Nonsense.

[HitEmTrue]

@Mikey5e Again what is the difference between an alignment aid on a golf ball and an alignment aid on the ground?
The main difference is that a golf ball is necessary to play the game.

[bladehunter]

Seems easy to me minus the politics of people griping.

 

Make the rule state that markings on one side of the ball only. And then that the ball has to be played marking side down to putt on the green.

 

Seems easy to me. Much easier than the tests to determine anchoring or not. ( which are still mystery ).

[Sawgrass]

I’ve been pretty active here and I don’t recall anyone saying or implying that the idea of changing the rules is inappropriate. Can you direct me to such a post?

If you can’t, let me express my frustration at your throwing that idea around. Sure, people defend rules that make sense to them, but not even the a Ruling Bodies think they are perfect — they have a quarterly program of updates/changes for God’s sake.

[DaveLeeNC]

Two sets of rules for golf (competition - whatever that is, and not competition - whatever that is). Where the heck did that come from? Was this discussed somewhere? Is this intended to be enforced via CoC stuff, or just what is this?

dave

[davep043]

@Mikey5e says:
"You know it to be true, it won't hurt you to admit it, so man up and just admit it that they both aid in a golfer's alignment of their shot."
I've said it all along, I don't believe that a line that long is a significant help, so there's no need to change this rule. There's a big difference between an alignment stick on the ground and a 1.6" line drawn with a marker on a curved surface.
But lets be clear, I didn't say it was impossible to write the rule, I just asked you as a proponent to do the writing. You want to outlaw manufacturers writing anything in a line. You want to outlaw the player making any identifying mark which could be used as an alignment line. I think you need more detail, and you need to reconcile this prohibition with the requirement that a player be able to identify his ball. Once you've done that, I think its time for you to send along your suggestion to the USGA for further consideration.
And you've STILL not described how the line on the ball is unfair, and you've CLAIMED that the line is an advantage without offering any proof. Three times I've asked, three times you've failed to reply substantively. @bladehunter says:
"Make the rule state that markings on one side of the ball only. And then that the ball has to be played marking side down to putt on the green."
But the manufacturers already mark their name on opposing sides of the ball, with at last one more separate label. You'll need to define just what you mean in a little more detail. I suppose its possible, you could say that there must be one complete hemisphere devoid of markings, either manufactured or added by the player. That would require a little change to the manufacturers' current procedures.. You'll also want to decide whether you can place the ball with the markings up in any other situation, such as on the tee, or when it has been legally lifted elsewhere on the course.
An interesting aside, I know a fella who coaches a small college golf team. He tells his players to mark only one side o the ball. That way, there's a greater chance they'll legitimately need to lift the ball to identify it. When they replace the ball, they'll have the opportunity to rotate it to avoid having the club impact any stuck-on mud. Its a tiny potential advantage, completely within the rules, so why not take it.

[HitEmTrue]

 

There were a few that requested that this topic be closed when the thread had gone of the rails a bit after a certain user was banned. Or not banned. Not really sure what happened there.

Those same folks (or some of them? I'm not going to re-read the thread) have taken part in rules change conversation that has happened since then.

And I don't want to go back and forth on this side topic. It detracts, again, from the point of the thread.

 

[Sawgrass]

Level with me: you really want balls with marks on only one side? Do you know how many times you’ll have to mark and lift while playing a hole to verify that the ball is yours?

[davep043]

To me, this threads and others like it are interesting. Its good to think critically about the rules, I think it has helped me to better understand the basis of many of them, and how they work with to compliment or refine other rules. They can also spur some of us to research and learn the rules better than we did previously.

[HitEmTrue]

 

I agree. When LICC was taking his strong stance on a couple of matters, I spent time looking at the rules, and considering the ramifications of making certain changes. That helps me understand the rules, and why they are the way they are.

 

[HitEmTrue]

I sure hate how quotes can't be edited now. Going old school copy-paste
@bladehunter Make the rule state that markings on one side of the ball only. And then that the ball has to be played marking side down to putt on the green.I often times putt without marking the ball at all. Would you require the player to mark and replace ball if the mark is not facing down?

[farmer]

I spot aim in the fairway and off the tee, so by logical extension, my leaf or tuft of grass will be disallowed? They are alignment aids, after all.

[LICC]

What @Mikey5e is proposing isn't outlandish at all. The rule can simply say that markings added to a ball cannot be used for alignment purposes. If someone wants to use the manufacturer's name already printed on the ball, that is fine, but no use of other markings. I don't think it is a big deal or needed, but I don't see why some here are attacking his view as being impossible to implement.

[Newby]

And then that the ball has to be played marking side down to putt on the green.

So everyone has to mark, lift and replace their ball on the green for every stroke?

[Mikey5e]

I swear I wonder how this country has ever evolved in terms of progress with attitudes like they are in here stating that "

how can this be done"?

Although things do get done so there are those who are courageous enough to realize that a change needs to be made and aren't afraid to do it. If some of you were in control we would be driving around in Model T cars.

[Newby]

If you can produce a watertight wording for a rule, as detailed as the technical specification for an improved car or washing machine, we might be convinced it could work.

Always assuming it is necessary of course.

[Sawgrass]

Of course outlawing marks on ball could be done. It’s just that doing so would be counterproductive. Instead of talking in silly platitudes, how about responding to the legitimate questions asked of you.

[Mr. Bean]

Some history lessons might do you good, Mikey. The vast majority of technology used and manufactured in your country has been originally developed outside your country or by people imported into your country in order to develop those technologies for your country.

Afa this particular issue is concerned, I believe people here are bringing forward things that need to be taken into consideration when thinking about the change you proposed. They might seem to you as opposing things from progressing but IMO they are merely testing the sustainability of your idea and it being implemented.

[bladehunter]

Well. There was a 20 page argument that I wasn’t attached to that resulted in a suspension. That person didn’t argue to himself. “ I know you are but what am I “ seemed to be the theme

 

I had a poster chastise me for the use of the slang “ handicap “ vs HI Or CH ( citing it as being confusion that I caused with my misuse of descriptive phrases) just yesterday ...only to have 2 kind souls finally say that they also knew this to be common speak , and that handicap index and course handicap not to me common speak in their daily play.

Those are Just examples of the opinions thrown about as facts that are becoming prevalent here.

 

[nsxguy]

LOL

This country has evolved by people asking questions and getting answers. It's called a "conversation". It relies on people who give you the answers and ask questions themselves for YOU to answer - but you don't. Probably because you can't or you realize how silly the question was you asked in the first place.

Problem is, you can't be bothered answering any of the questions posed to you. You deflect, ignore and/or just go on asking other questions and/or keep criticizing.

That makes YOU the problem. Not surprised you can't see it though,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[HitEmTrue]

@bladehunter Well. There was a 20 page argument that I wasn’t attached to that resulted in a suspension. That person didn’t argue to himself. “ I know you are but what am I “ seemed to be the theme
How is discussing and disagreeing with someone the same as believing it to be sacrilege to discuss that topic?

[bladehunter]

@Sawgrass

read the last 7-8 posts above. lol. That should answer your question . I can propose a change to any rule and the same group will jump on it like a dog on a bone. “ let me see you write a water tight version of that “

Most of the current rules aren’t water tight. It’s a non starter topic around here.

[Sawgrass]

Asking someone to present their proposed rule for critical review is worlds apart from saying the rules shouldn’t be changed.

The challenge is making a change for the better.

BTW, some of the most knowledgeable rules people on this board have suggested rules changes. Imagine that.

 

Just complaining is weak sauce.

[davep043]

Its because so many people like to pick holes in the rules that it has become imperative to write them as clearly and accurately as possible. It it cannot be written in a way that can be clearly understood and enforced, it will cause problems in the future. You in particular point at the "anchoring" rule, which to me is written clearly enough, but its difficult to tell at time whether a player is violating it or not. If we're going to discuss changes, it seems that two valid aspects of any proposed change are first, whether a change is needed or desirable, and second, how best to write an effective rule change. Picking at the details of a proposal can be intended to make that proposal more effective, or to show why its not a practical option to propose. I don't think its productive at all to say "Lets change THIS. I have no earthly idea how to make that change happen, but lets do it"

[James the Hogan Fan]

Then why the wedge groove condition of competition? Or the one-ball rule?