What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > >

> > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > >

> > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> >

> > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> >

> > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> >

>

> I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

 

Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

 

 

[LICC]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine, I'll bite.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One is IN BOUNDS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One is OUT OF BOUNDS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It really is that simple.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you have no answer. No idea. Nothing to add. Got it.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are consequences in all sports for sending the ball off the playing field. Do you think it's unfair a player loses the point in tennis if s/he hits the ball out of bounds or that you lose possession of the ball if you send the ball off the pitch in football?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your analogy helps my argument. The player loses one point in tennis (and not even that on the first serve). This rule is like the player would lose two points in tennis for one OB stroke

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it doesn't, there's a one-stroke penalty, not two. The ball didn't fly OB on its own no matter how much you want to avoid the responsibility for the stroke.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You chose the club, the swing and the aim and then tried to execute the shot. It was you and only you who sent the ball OB and you're penalized one stroke for such an awful shot.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stroke AND distance. That is a two stroke penalty. The new local rule that lets you place the ball on the fairway requires a TWO stroke penalty. You are now hitting 4. Let’s not be distorting the discussion

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Like you said it is Stroke and Distance, not Two Strokes and Distance.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > You hit your tee shot OB but hit the fairway with your second try. You're now lying three on the fairway, not four. You've made two strokes at the ball and have had to add one penalty stroke to your score, not two.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This is silly. Please stop with this. There is a stroke penalty and a distance penalty. If you hit in the water, you take a one penalty stroke drop at the point it went in. No distance penalty. If you hit it out of bounds, you take a stroke penalty and by re-teeing, you take a distance penalty.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If I hit a 200-yard shot into a penalty area but the ball crossed into the PA 5 yards in front of the spot from which I made the stroke, I'm losing 195 yards despite there being no distance penalty. If I skull my 20-yard lob shot 60 yards over the green and OB, I've gained 40 yards with the distance penalty.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Please show me this 200 yard PA that starts 5 yards from your shot

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Here are two pictures from my home club from one single hole.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can’t make out what that is showing. Where is the tee box?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The white dot in the first picture. Most players lay up their tee shots to around where the white dot is in the second picture because there's long hay and bushes to the right of the fairway and if you miss slightly left (like the line in the first picture), it's atleast a 230-meter carry over the water.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The penal aspect of that hole is it's design (bad design). If you hit it in the water, you can hit your next shot from as far as possible as your first shot went over land. Which is fair- you get credit for the distance you hit the ball over the playable area, and you get a one-stroke penalty for the ball ending in an unplayable area. The rest of the penalty is from the hole design, not a bad rule. In more typical situations, with OB, you get no credit for hitting the ball over the playable area and have an effective two-stroke penalty. Illogical.

> > > > >

> > > > > Both the stroke penalty and the distance penalty are 100% logical. Don’t like the definitions? That’s fair but it’s subjective.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You still can't explain why the distance penalty for OB but not for PA is logical.

> > >

> > > Having played in a league for many years that plays no loss of distance for an OB shot I can say that it changes the dynamics. It happens often enough that some higher handicapper knocks one OB drops near where they went OB and then ends up making a bogey or double bogey for net par which drives me nuts when I make a good par only to tie the hole.

> > >

> > > If they did change the OB to no loss of distance then I would think every course would need to be re-rated and hole handicaps would need to be restructured. Mostly I have more of a problem with the way some courses are designed with lack of room to safely err to an area with a lot less risk of going OB. I just mostly avoid courses that are poorly designed with respect to OB areas.

> >

> > Why does it drive you nuts? He gets a stroke on the hole. He hit a bad shot. He dropped where it went OB and gets a penalty stroke for that bad shot. Why should he get two penalties for one bad shot? That was his stroke to get because of his handicap. He then must have played the rest of the hole well to take a 5 for a 4. Does it drive you nuts the same way if he hits it into a pond and then gets a 5 for a 4?

>

> It drives me nuts simply because presumably both players post scores for handicap purposes based on it being a 2 stroke penalty and the courses are presumably rated based on that penalty. As I said If they did change the OB to a 1-stroke and no loss of distance penalty then I would think every course would need to be re-rated and hole handicaps would need to be restructured. If the system were already designed for a 1 stroke for OB and the handicap system, hole handicaps and course ratings were based on 1-stroke then I don't think it would drive me as nuts. It would be a pretty significant change IMO.

>

> I can't be sure how I would feel about a switch to a 1-stroke penalty for play **and** posting as I have no experience with such a system and I doubt many do. As it stands I take more issue with some courses being poorly designed in MNSHO in relation to the OB areas.

 

I'm guessing it would only affect official outings and tournaments, and even then only slightly. Most recreational golfers don't take the two stroke penalties anyway.

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > >

> > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > >

> > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > >

> > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > >

> >

> > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

>

> Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

>

>

 

Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > >

> > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > >

> > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> >

> > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> >

> >

>

> Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

 

It is if that is the actual explanation.

 

Which it is.

 

Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

[Halebopp]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > >

> > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > >

> > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> >

> > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> >

> > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> >

>

> I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

 

Ok, let's take that same exact swing with the same exact result (the landing spot for the ball) but with several different results:

 

1. It is OB, you are forced to take S&D

2. It is playable in a penalty area

3. It is unplayable in a penalty area and need to take relief with a penalty, the ball crossed into the PA 5 yards from where it came to rest

4. It is unplayable in a penalty area and need to take relief with a penalty, the ball crossed into the PA 5 yards from where you made the stroke

5. It is in a bunker

6. It is in light rough with an easy shot to the green

7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

8. It is in a no-play zone from which you must take free relief by dropping to a dropping-zone which happens to be closer to the hole than where the ball came to rest and has grass cut shorter than the surrounding rough.

 

Which of these cases would you consider unfair besides point #1? Because to me it's just different parts of the golf course and I need to take the course design into consideration when deciding on the stroke and the club I'm going to use. The shot itself (while being exactly the same) would be the worst in cases 1 & 4 and the best in case 6.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > I can't be sure how I would feel about a switch to a 1-stroke penalty for play **and** posting as I have no experience with such a system and I doubt many do. As it stands I take more issue with some courses being poorly designed in MNSHO in relation to the OB areas.

>

> I'm guessing it would only affect official outings and tournaments, and even then only slightly. Most recreational golfers don't take the two stroke penalties anyway.

I'd guess that most recreational golfers don't keep an official handicap, so I'm not too concerned with what they do. But in a rules forum, it seems appropriate to consider those who choose to play by the rules. Recreational golfers who don't take two-stroke penalties shouldn't really be part of a rules discussion.

Within my golfing circle, we do play by the rules, and that means taking stroke and distance penalties when appropriate, and we post our scores as required. And I'd estimate that changing the penalty for OB would decrease many handicaps by a stroke, maybe even two.

We also take the General Penalty when appropriate. In case you weren't sure, that one really IS a two-stroke penalty, at least in stroke play.

 

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > >

> > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > >

> > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

>

> It is if that is the actual explanation.

>

> Which it is.

>

> Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

 

To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > I can't be sure how I would feel about a switch to a 1-stroke penalty for play **and** posting as I have no experience with such a system and I doubt many do. As it stands I take more issue with some courses being poorly designed in MNSHO in relation to the OB areas.

> >

> > I'm guessing it would only affect official outings and tournaments, and even then only slightly. Most recreational golfers don't take the two stroke penalties anyway.

> I'd guess that most recreational golfers don't keep an official handicap, so I'm not too concerned with what they do. But in a rules forum, it seems appropriate to consider those who choose to play by the rules. Recreational golfers who don't take two-stroke penalties shouldn't really be part of a rules discussion.

> Within my golfing circle, we do play by the rules, and that means taking stroke and distance penalties when appropriate, and we post our scores as required. And I'd estimate that changing the penalty for OB would decrease many handicaps by a stroke, maybe even two.

> We also take the General Penalty when appropriate. In case you weren't sure, that one really IS a two-stroke penalty, at least in stroke play.

>

 

 

I agree with everything you wrote here. Except I think a good percentage of recreational golfers do keep handicaps and don’t follow all the precise penalty rules in doing so.

[Vindog]

 

 

 

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > > >

> > > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

> >

> > It is if that is the actual explanation.

> >

> > Which it is.

> >

> > Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

>

> To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

 

If a receiver catches the ball out of bounds, it is incomplete, the yards don’t count, but the down does

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

>

>

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

> > >

> > > It is if that is the actual explanation.

> > >

> > > Which it is.

> > >

> > > Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

> >

> > To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

>

> If a receiver catches the ball out of bounds, it is incomplete, the yards don’t count, but the down does

 

One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> I agree with everything you wrote here. Except I think a good percentage of recreational golfers do keep handicaps and don’t follow all the precise penalty rules in doing so.

The data isn't really recent, but the numbers I've found in a quick search indicate that about 24 million people play golf in the US, but only about 2 million have a handicap in GHIN. A few other USGA handicap systems run outside of GHIN, but close to 90% of all golfers in the US don't keep a handicap. And I'm certain that of the 2 or 3 million golfers who DO keep one, there is a noticeable percentage who don't follow all of the rules. If they manage to vanity-cap themselves that way, I'm good with it.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > I agree with everything you wrote here. Except I think a good percentage of recreational golfers do keep handicaps and don’t follow all the precise penalty rules in doing so.

> The data isn't really recent, but the numbers I've found in a quick search indicate that about 24 million people play golf in the US, but only about 2 million have a handicap in GHIN. A few other USGA handicap systems run outside of GHIN, but close to 90% of all golfers in the US don't keep a handicap. And I'm certain that of the 2 or 3 million golfers who DO keep one, there is a noticeable percentage who don't follow all of the rules. If they manage to vanity-cap themselves that way, I'm good with it.

>

 

I know quite a few that don't keep an official handicap because they don't belong to a club or want to pay to do it, but they keep an unofficial handicap on an app or web calculator. LOL on your last point. I love playing a nassau against someone who tells me he is a 10 and after the first hole I can tell he is more like a 15.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> >

> >

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

> > > >

> > > > It is if that is the actual explanation.

> > > >

> > > > Which it is.

> > > >

> > > > Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

> > >

> > > To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

> >

> > If a receiver catches the ball out of bounds, it is incomplete, the yards don’t count, but the down does

>

> One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field

 

It’s an area of the field that has been defined as

 

 

Wait for it...

 

 

 

Out of bounds.

[LICC]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > >

> > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > >

> > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > >

> > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > >

> >

> > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

>

> Ok, let's take that same exact swing with the same exact result (the landing spot for the ball) but with several different results:

>

> 1. It is OB, you are forced to take S&D

> 2. It is playable in a penalty area

> 3. It is unplayable in a penalty area and need to take relief with a penalty, the ball crossed into the PA 5 yards from where it came to rest

> 4. It is unplayable in a penalty area and need to take relief with a penalty, the ball crossed into the PA 5 yards from where you made the stroke

> 5. It is in a bunker

> 6. It is in light rough with an easy shot to the green

> 7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

> 8. It is in a no-play zone from which you must take free relief by dropping to a dropping-zone which happens to be closer to the hole than where the ball came to rest and has grass cut shorter than the surrounding rough.

>

> Which of these cases would you consider unfair besides point #1? Because to me it's just different parts of the golf course and I need to take the course design into consideration when deciding on the stroke and the club I'm going to use. The shot itself (while being exactly the same) would be the worst in cases 1 & 4 and the best in case 6.

 

I'll preface by saying there is a difference between something being unfair because of a bad course design (not yours! just in general), compared to an unfair rule. To your examples: 1- unfair rule; 2 and 3- generally fine; 4- may be unfair based on course design, but not the rule; 5 and 6- generally fine; 7- it depends on what caused the unplayable lie (balls landing in divots is another discussion); and 8- depends, but this is a course issue and not a rules issue.

 

I basically don't agree with distance penalties in any circumstance. One bad shot should receive one penalty, not two. Intentional breakage of a rule warrants stronger penalties, not bad execution.

[HatsForBats]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is if that is the actual explanation.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which it is.

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

> > > >

> > > > To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

> > >

> > > If a receiver catches the ball out of bounds, it is incomplete, the yards don’t count, but the down does

> >

> > One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field

>

> It’s an area of the field that has been defined as

>

>

> Wait for it...

>

>

>

> Out of bounds.

 

I don't see how that counters the previous statement 'One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field'.

[TwistedSister]

NONE! they are all just fine with me!

[Vindog]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh it’s a perfectly good answer, you just don’t like it.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Contact your rules association if you need more depth.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It's a meaningless answer. It's ok that you can't explain it. There really is no good reason.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I did explain it. Several times. As did others. Your issue is how the areas have been defined by the people who make the game. Since I did not make up the game you will have to take it up with the people who do make up the game.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I’m sure they would love to hear from you and get some insight on your analysis, and delivery. Please report back as soon as possible.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I don't care how the areas are defined. The definition of areas is irrelevant. My issue is that the same exact swing with the same exact result, with the only difference being one ball is in a patch of grass next to a white stake and the other is on the bottom of a pond, can lead to two different levels of penalty. Neither you nor anyone here has explained how that is logical.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yes we have. You just don’t have your listening ears on.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Just repeating yourself that one is OB (not part of the course!) and the other is PA (part of the course!) is not an explanation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is if that is the actual explanation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Which it is.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you argue about why the fair/foul line is where it is? Or why an American football field is 100 yards?

> > > > >

> > > > > To take your analogy, it would be as if in football, the rule was that if you get tackled at the 20 yard line, the ball is spotted at the 20 yard line, but if you run OB at the 20 yard line, it gets placed back at the original line of scrimmage. Because OB or something.

> > > >

> > > > If a receiver catches the ball out of bounds, it is incomplete, the yards don’t count, but the down does

> > >

> > > One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field

> >

> > It’s an area of the field that has been defined as

> >

> >

> > Wait for it...

> >

> >

> >

> > Out of bounds.

>

> I don't see how that counters the previous statement 'One down counts. They don’t take another down away because the ball was off the property of the field'.

 

The analogy initially was in respect to the defined areas of play in baseball and football and golf. LICC made a tangent to that to fit his needs. So I did the same.

 

Neither are particularly relevant in any case.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @Halebopp said:

 

> > 7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

 

> I'll preface by saying there is a difference between something being unfair because of a bad course design (not yours! just in general), compared to an unfair rule. To your examples: 1- unfair rule; 2 and 3- generally fine; 4- may be unfair based on course design, but not the rule; 5 and 6- generally fine; 7- it depends on what caused the unplayable lie (balls landing in divots is another discussion); and 8- depends, but this is a course issue and not a rules issue.

>

> I basically don't agree with distance penalties in any circumstance. One bad shot should receive one penalty, not two. Intentional breakage of a rule warrants stronger penalties, not bad execution.

 

Let's look at #7 a little closer. Let's imagine that the ball has bounced off of a slope into deep woods. The ball is unplayable because its in a briar patch. Back on a line relief keeps you in the same woods, an inadvisable choice, same with 2 clublengths. So your only reasonable choice is . . . . stroke and distance. Is that unfair and illogical too?

 

[gioguy21]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > >

> > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > >

> > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> >

> > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> >

> > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

>

> You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

 

i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

 

if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

 

if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

 

The end.

[sui generis]

We see this from time to time. Folks show up in the Rules folder wishing to have their particular style of play blessed. Their reasons vary from "It's quicker my way" or "everyone else does it (or doesn't)" or the best, "the Rules are stupid." They soldier on defensively, but in the end slink away when they've been explained to ad nauseam and just give up.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Halebopp said:

>

> > > 7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

>

> > I'll preface by saying there is a difference between something being unfair because of a bad course design (not yours! just in general), compared to an unfair rule. To your examples: 1- unfair rule; 2 and 3- generally fine; 4- may be unfair based on course design, but not the rule; 5 and 6- generally fine; 7- it depends on what caused the unplayable lie (balls landing in divots is another discussion); and 8- depends, but this is a course issue and not a rules issue.

> >

> > I basically don't agree with distance penalties in any circumstance. One bad shot should receive one penalty, not two. Intentional breakage of a rule warrants stronger penalties, not bad execution.

>

> Let's look at #7 a little closer. Let's imagine that the ball has bounced off of a slope into deep woods. The ball is unplayable because its in a briar patch. Back on a line relief keeps you in the same woods, an inadvisable choice, same with 2 clublengths. So your only reasonable choice is . . . . stroke and distance. Is that unfair and illogical too?

>

 

Your hypothetical is highly unlikely. If two club lengths of lateral relief from the ball still doesn't get you to a place that you can drop and hit it, I can't imagine that at some point not too far with back of line relief (which you still get two club lengths off the line to drop), that you couldn't find a place to drop. You may be stuck with a punch-out and a one stroke penalty, but that is not an unfairness of the rule. It may (or may not) be an unfair design that a slope in the fairway kicks you into a mess in the woods, or it may be unfair that the course is maintained poorly and the briar patch is a mess, but it is not an unfair rule.

[LICC]

> @gioguy21 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > >

> > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > >

> > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > >

> > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > >

> > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> >

> > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

>

> i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

>

> if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

>

> if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

>

> The end.

 

No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is an illogical rule.

[gioguy21]

> @LICC said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > > >

> > > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > > >

> > > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> > >

> > > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

> >

> > i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

> >

> > if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

> >

> > if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

> >

> > The end.

>

> No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is a stupid rule.

 

if the pond is dry, you could play out of it...no? that's on you as a player to decide/determine.

 

YOU are saying it is a stupid rule. everyone else that is here agrees with it and accepts it. move along.

[LICC]

> @gioguy21 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @gioguy21 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > > > >

> > > > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> > > >

> > > > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

> > >

> > > i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

> > >

> > > if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

> > >

> > > if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

> > >

> > > The end.

> >

> > No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is a stupid rule.

>

> if the pond is dry, you could play out of it...no? that's on you as a player to decide/determine.

>

> YOU are saying it is a stupid rule. everyone else that is here agrees with it and accepts it. move along.

 

If there is no water in the hole, then it is not a pond. If the white stakes are moved over ten yards, those ten yards are no longer OB. Everyone here may accept it but no one here can give a rational explanation for it.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > > >

> > > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > > >

> > > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > > >

> > > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> > >

> > > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

> >

> > i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

> >

> > if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

> >

> > if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

> >

> > The end.

>

> No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is an illogical rule.

 

You keep saying it’s illogical but I keep showing how it is, by definition.

 

 

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Halebopp said:

> >

> > > > 7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

> >

> > > I'll preface by saying there is a difference between something being unfair because of a bad course design (not yours! just in general), compared to an unfair rule. To your examples: 1- unfair rule; 2 and 3- generally fine; 4- may be unfair based on course design, but not the rule; 5 and 6- generally fine; 7- it depends on what caused the unplayable lie (balls landing in divots is another discussion); and 8- depends, but this is a course issue and not a rules issue.

> > >

> > > I basically don't agree with distance penalties in any circumstance. One bad shot should receive one penalty, not two. Intentional breakage of a rule warrants stronger penalties, not bad execution.

> >

> > Let's look at #7 a little closer. Let's imagine that the ball has bounced off of a slope into deep woods. The ball is unplayable because its in a briar patch. Back on a line relief keeps you in the same woods, an inadvisable choice, same with 2 clublengths. So your only reasonable choice is . . . . stroke and distance. Is that unfair and illogical too?

> >

>

> Your hypothetical is highly unlikely. If two club lengths of lateral relief from the ball still doesn't get you to a place that you can drop and hit it, I can't imagine that at some point not too far with back of line relief (which you still get two club lengths off the line to drop), that you couldn't find a place to drop. You may be stuck with a punch-out and a one stroke penalty, but that is not an unfairness of the rule. It may (or may not) be an unfair design that a slope in the fairway kicks you into a mess in the woods, or it may be unfair that the course is maintained poorly and the briar patch is a mess, but it is not an unfair rule.

This wasn't a shot that hit the fairway, this was a bad shot, the same kind of bad shot that goes over the boundary fence, or into a pond. This is the kind of bad shot that lands in the woods. After all, we're comparing the results of similar bad shots, not unfortunate bad results from good shots. I don't know where you play, but here in Virginia we have lots of woods that are virtually unplayable yet remain in the General Area.

BTW, when taking back on the line relief, you only get one clublength from the reference point, which must be on the line.

 

[gioguy21]

> @LICC said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @gioguy21 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> > > > >

> > > > > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

> > > >

> > > > i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

> > > >

> > > > if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

> > > >

> > > > if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

> > > >

> > > > The end.

> > >

> > > No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is a stupid rule.

> >

> > if the pond is dry, you could play out of it...no? that's on you as a player to decide/determine.

> >

> > YOU are saying it is a stupid rule. everyone else that is here agrees with it and accepts it. move along.

>

> If there is no water in the hole, then it is not a pond. If the white stakes are moved over ten yards, those ten yards are no longer OB. Everyone here may accept it but no one here can give a rational explanation for it.

 

there are plenty of times when a hazard may or may not have a pond in it -- i'm explaining to you the definition of a marking of a hazard, not a pond (despite the fact a pond could be OB OR a hazard). we're giving you a LITERAL DEFINITION and you cannot accept it.

 

no one gives a rats a if YOU think it should be moved 10 yards, 50 yards or 2 inches. they're marked OB - that's it.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Halebopp said:

> > >

> > > > > 7. It is in an unplayable lie in the general area forcing you to take a penalty drop

> > >

> > > > I'll preface by saying there is a difference between something being unfair because of a bad course design (not yours! just in general), compared to an unfair rule. To your examples: 1- unfair rule; 2 and 3- generally fine; 4- may be unfair based on course design, but not the rule; 5 and 6- generally fine; 7- it depends on what caused the unplayable lie (balls landing in divots is another discussion); and 8- depends, but this is a course issue and not a rules issue.

> > > >

> > > > I basically don't agree with distance penalties in any circumstance. One bad shot should receive one penalty, not two. Intentional breakage of a rule warrants stronger penalties, not bad execution.

> > >

> > > Let's look at #7 a little closer. Let's imagine that the ball has bounced off of a slope into deep woods. The ball is unplayable because its in a briar patch. Back on a line relief keeps you in the same woods, an inadvisable choice, same with 2 clublengths. So your only reasonable choice is . . . . stroke and distance. Is that unfair and illogical too?

> > >

> >

> > Your hypothetical is highly unlikely. If two club lengths of lateral relief from the ball still doesn't get you to a place that you can drop and hit it, I can't imagine that at some point not too far with back of line relief (which you still get two club lengths off the line to drop), that you couldn't find a place to drop. You may be stuck with a punch-out and a one stroke penalty, but that is not an unfairness of the rule. It may (or may not) be an unfair design that a slope in the fairway kicks you into a mess in the woods, or it may be unfair that the course is maintained poorly and the briar patch is a mess, but it is not an unfair rule.

> This wasn't a shot that hit the fairway, this was a bad shot, the same kind of bad shot that goes over the boundary fence, or into a pond. This is the kind of bad shot that lands in the woods. After all, we're comparing the results of similar bad shots, not unfortunate bad results from good shots. I don't know where you play, but here in Virginia we have lots of woods that are virtually unplayable yet remain in the General Area.

> BTW, when taking back on the line relief, you only get one clublength from the reference point, which must be on the line.

>

 

I play in NY. Lots of woods and trees. Not often that you can't find some spot to drop the ball and punch out.

Thanks for the clarification- I was referring to one clublength in either direction, so you have a two-clublength width to find a spot off the line to drop your ball.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @gioguy21 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @gioguy21 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Vindog said:

> > > > > > > > I thought I did earlier then Bean and Newby took care of that again. I could repeat what they said insofar as definitions and playing areas are concerned. But that really all there is to it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One is defined as part of the course. You may play out of it, and if you can’t then it’s relief with a one stroke penalty. Since it is on the course the distance gained counts.

> > > > > > > > One is off the course. the distance gained is cancelled but the stroke counts. You will have to re hit for another stroke then add one stroke penalty.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Again, that is a distinction without a difference. Why should it matter if it is considered "part of the course" or not (and not even getting into the issue of internal OB)? You have a target, you swing, the ball goes wayward, it ends at a place that is irretrievable. One shot gets you one penalty and the exact same other shot gets you two penalties. What does it matter if the landing spot is "part of the course" or not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you are wondering what the difference is between part of the course and not part of the course, then I have to wonder about how obtuse this discussion is.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And for the record I can not stand internal OB.

> > > > >

> > > > > You cannot explain, for purposes of fair scoring and fair application of penalties, why a ball that bounces past a white stake is treated differently than a ball that goes into a pond. Being "part of the course" is not a good answer.

> > > >

> > > > i can explain. for the purposes of defining what a hazard is by rule, a ball that bounces past a white stake is OB. a ball that goes into a hazard (water or otherwise) is treated as a ball lying in a penalty area.

> > > >

> > > > if the white stakes are used as a boundary line, regardless of whether it is an interior boundary or that of a property line, or the like - you shall not play from beyond it. period. end of story. sc*ew your fairness discussion.

> > > >

> > > > if your ball lies in a hazard, it is on you to determine if the ball is playable or not; if it is found to not be playable, the rules shall be followed to the letter for proper dropping procedure.

> > > >

> > > > The end.

> > >

> > > No one is saying to play from beyond the OB. I'm saying to drop in bounds at the point it went out, take a penalty, and play on. Just like if it went into a pond. It's ridiculous to say the bottom of the pond is a part of the course that a player can decide whether or not to play from. The additional distance penalty is a stupid rule.

> >

> > if the pond is dry, you could play out of it...no? that's on you as a player to decide/determine.

> >

> > YOU are saying it is a stupid rule. everyone else that is here agrees with it and accepts it. move along.

>

> If there is no water in the hole, then it is not a pond. If the white stakes are moved over ten yards, those ten yards are no longer OB. Everyone here may accept it but no one here can give a rational explanation for it

 

A PA that normally has water but is dry is still a PA.

[Newby]

> @LICC :

>

Have you any response to post #179?