What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[davep043]

> @Vindog said:

>

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

And now with the new rules there can be lots of Penalty Areas that never held water, but from which you can take PA relief. Its all in the definitions. And if we throw out the definitions, we have anarchy. Or perhaps consistency. Same rules everywhere. If you can't find your ball for any reason, its lost. Woods, water, cactus, muddy patch, neighbors hibachi, treat them all identically. Go back to its last known location, and play from there with a stroke penalty. Same if you don't like the place you found it, go back to the previous location and play, with a penalty stroke. Certainly would simplify the rules, wouldn't it?

 

[LICC]

> @Newby said:

> > @LICC said:

> >

> > 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.

>

> It would make sense if you consider that the player should know that an area to the right of the fairway (say) is marked red or white. If the latter, he should take extra care that he doesn't hit to the right. It is called course management. If a player just blasts the ball without considering the consequences, he deserves what he gets.

 

Whether the bad shot would result in one penalty or two, I don't think would cause the player to play in any more focused way.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Vindog said:

> >

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

> And now with the new rules there can be lots of Penalty Areas that never held water, but from which you can take PA relief. Its all in the definitions. And if we throw out the definitions, we have anarchy. Or perhaps consistency. Same rules everywhere. If you can't find your ball for any reason, its lost. Woods, water, cactus, muddy patch, neighbors hibachi, treat them all identically. Go back to its last known location, and play from there with a stroke penalty. Same if you don't like the place you found it, go back to the previous location and play, with a penalty stroke. Certainly would simplify the rules, wouldn't it?

>

 

So you want stroke and distance penalties for PAs the same as if they were OBs?

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > >

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

> > And now with the new rules there can be lots of Penalty Areas that never held water, but from which you can take PA relief. Its all in the definitions. And if we throw out the definitions, we have anarchy. Or perhaps consistency. Same rules everywhere. If you can't find your ball for any reason, its lost. Woods, water, cactus, muddy patch, neighbors hibachi, treat them all identically. Go back to its last known location, and play from there with a stroke penalty. Same if you don't like the place you found it, go back to the previous location and play, with a penalty stroke. Certainly would simplify the rules, wouldn't it?

> >

>

> So you want stroke and distance penalties for PAs the same as if they were OBs?

You don't like having different penalties simply because the ball lands in differently defined areas. I'm simply following preference that to its LOGICAL end. No definitions, treat everything with the same penalty.

[Halebopp]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

 

In your previous post you said, _"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."

 

Which implies it's illogical (or maybe unfair) there are different results for the exact same stroke depending on what sort of area the ball comes to rest in. Using that logic I struggle to see how it would not be unfair someone might end up in an unplayable lie (between a rock and a tree for example) when he is pin high but ten yards right of the green whereas another player makes the exact same miss on the next hole but has an easy chip onto the green. There are two levels of penalties right there - no penalty at all and a penalty for moving the ball away from the unplayable lie.

[HatsForBats]

> @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.

 

I think most in here accept it but I can't say I agree with it. Without playing exclusively in a system that would treat it as a lesser penalty it is not easy to compare to the way it is now.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @Vindog said:

> > > >

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

> > > And now with the new rules there can be lots of Penalty Areas that never held water, but from which you can take PA relief. Its all in the definitions. And if we throw out the definitions, we have anarchy. Or perhaps consistency. Same rules everywhere. If you can't find your ball for any reason, its lost. Woods, water, cactus, muddy patch, neighbors hibachi, treat them all identically. Go back to its last known location, and play from there with a stroke penalty. Same if you don't like the place you found it, go back to the previous location and play, with a penalty stroke. Certainly would simplify the rules, wouldn't it?

> > >

> >

> > So you want stroke and distance penalties for PAs the same as if they were OBs?

> You don't like having different penalties simply because the ball lands in differently defined areas. I'm simply following preference that to its LOGICAL end. No definitions, treat everything with the same penalty.

 

I still can't tell if that is your view, but if it is I respect the consistency. I don't agree, but I understand it.

[LICC]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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.

>

> In your previous post you said, _"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."

>

> Which implies it's illogical (or maybe unfair) there are different results for the exact same stroke depending on what sort of area the ball comes to rest in. Using that logic I struggle to see how it would not be unfair someone might end up in an unplayable lie (between a rock and a tree for example) when he is pin high but ten yards right of the green whereas another player makes the exact same miss on the next hole but has an easy chip onto the green. There are two levels of penalties right there - no penalty at all and a penalty for moving the ball away from the unplayable lie.

 

Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > It would make sense if you consider that the player should know that an area to the right of the fairway (say) is marked red or white. If the latter, he should take extra care that he doesn't hit to the right. It is called course management. If a player just blasts the ball without considering the consequences, he deserves what he gets.

>

> Whether the bad shot would result in one penalty or two, I don't think would cause the player to play in any more focused way.

 

It certainly should. You can’t see a bad shot coming, but you absolutely can protect against it. I slice it like no other. If there is OB right you bet your butter that I’m not aiming there and that I’m taking a little less club. And sure as sugar if there is water left and OB right I’m still protecting against the slice.

 

Course management: It’s Golf 101.

[gioguy21]

> @HatsForBats 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.

>

> I think most in here accept it but I can't say I agree with it. Without playing exclusively in a system that would treat it as a lesser penalty it is not easy to compare to the way it is now.

 

Lesser penalty? Of the two, pa vs ob, it allows u to play from it's current spot. If anything it gives you greater flexibility .

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

>

> Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

What about a third hole that has no OB and no PA. That same bad shot has no penalty. Isn't that similarly inconsistent? Don't you want similar swings penalized similarly? You seem to want to pick and choose your inconsistencies, while allowing lots of other inconsistencies to remain. Your logic is in itself rather inconsistent.

 

[LICC]

> @Vindog said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > It would make sense if you consider that the player should know that an area to the right of the fairway (say) is marked red or white. If the latter, he should take extra care that he doesn't hit to the right. It is called course management. If a player just blasts the ball without considering the consequences, he deserves what he gets.

> >

> > Whether the bad shot would result in one penalty or two, I don't think would cause the player to play in any more focused way.

>

> It certainly should. You can’t see a bad shot coming, but you absolutely can protect against it. I slice it like no other. If there is OB right you bet your butter that I’m not aiming there and that I’m taking a little less club. And sure as sugar if there is water left and OB right I’m still protecting against the slice.

>

> Course management: It’s Golf 101.

 

So you will focus more if there is OB right and not focus as much if the same exact area had a pond instead. Riiiiight ....

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> >

> > Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

> What about a third hole that has no OB and no PA. That same bad shot has no penalty. Isn't that similarly inconsistent? Don't you want similar swings penalized similarly? You seem to want to pick and choose your inconsistencies, while allowing lots of other inconsistencies to remain. Your logic is in itself rather inconsistent.

>

 

I said it earlier- the course design requiring different shots and causing different results is one thing. The rules inherently causing different scoring results illogically is another.

[HatsForBats]

> @LICC said:

> > @Halebopp said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > In your previous post you said, _"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."

> >

> > Which implies it's illogical (or maybe unfair) there are different results for the exact same stroke depending on what sort of area the ball comes to rest in. Using that logic I struggle to see how it would not be unfair someone might end up in an unplayable lie (between a rock and a tree for example) when he is pin high but ten yards right of the green whereas another player makes the exact same miss on the next hole but has an easy chip onto the green. There are two levels of penalties right there - no penalty at all and a penalty for moving the ball away from the unplayable lie.

>

> Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

 

Consider two holes of the same shape (dog-leg right for sake of discussion), size and distance with the only difference being one hole has a tree that is 10 feet high while the other it is 50 feet high. The tree is on the inside corner of the dog leg about 60 yards from the tee blocking a straight tee shot at tree height. The same swing on both holes could produce very different outcomes.

 

With OB you always have the option to play a club that minimizes the chances to go out. It may cost you a partial stroke to do so but will more often avoid the larger penalty of going OB.

 

Thinking on it more if OB was only loss of 1-stroke I would hope that the only option would be to replay from where the last stroke was taken. Though, I do admit I like the thought of being able to more aggressively attack some holes without the fear of such a large penalty.

[Halebopp]

> @LICC said:

> Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

 

I think you're contradicting yourself here. Different holes do need require different swings and a hole is very different depending on whether there's light rough, trees, a penalty area or OB right of the green. At my club there's a no-play zone ten yards right of one green. You must take free relief from it and the DZ is closer to the hole than the NPZ. On the next hole the same miss would be in a red PA, a couple of holes later the same miss would most probably be a lost ball as it's likely to hit some rocks and never be seen again. That's one reason those holes are different and require different swings.

[Vindog]

> @LICC said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Newby said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > It would make sense if you consider that the player should know that an area to the right of the fairway (say) is marked red or white. If the latter, he should take extra care that he doesn't hit to the right. It is called course management. If a player just blasts the ball without considering the consequences, he deserves what he gets.

> > >

> > > Whether the bad shot would result in one penalty or two, I don't think would cause the player to play in any more focused way.

> >

> > It certainly should. You can’t see a bad shot coming, but you absolutely can protect against it. I slice it like no other. If there is OB right you bet your butter that I’m not aiming there and that I’m taking a little less club. And sure as sugar if there is water left and OB right I’m still protecting against the slice.

> >

> > Course management: It’s Golf 101.

>

> So you will focus more if there is OB right and not focus as much if the same exact area had a pond instead. Riiiiight ....

 

That’s not at all what I said but let me clarify.

 

If there is OB right I would definitely focus on trying to not hit it there. Who wouldn’t?

If there is water right I am trying not to hit it there either.

If there is water left and OB right guess which side I would want to protect against more.

[LICC]

> @Halebopp said:

> > @LICC said:

> > Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

>

> I think you're contradicting yourself here. Different holes do need require different swings and a hole is very different depending on whether there's light rough, trees, a penalty area or OB right of the green. At my club there's a no-play zone ten yards right of one green. You must take free relief from it and the DZ is closer to the hole than the NPZ. On the next hole the same miss would be in a red PA, a couple of holes later the same miss would most probably be a lost ball as it's likely to hit some rocks and never be seen again. That's one reason those holes are different and require different swings.

 

There is no contradiction. A different layout or turf of different golf holes is not the same as a rule that applies different penalties to what is effectively the same swing and result.

[Mikey5e]

It's a toss up between getting a free drop from a fairway divot, or treating the OB like a hazard. Any level headed golfer agrees with me, as I have done extensive canvassing.

[Halebopp]

> @LICC said:

> > @Halebopp said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

> >

> > I think you're contradicting yourself here. Different holes do need require different swings and a hole is very different depending on whether there's light rough, trees, a penalty area or OB right of the green. At my club there's a no-play zone ten yards right of one green. You must take free relief from it and the DZ is closer to the hole than the NPZ. On the next hole the same miss would be in a red PA, a couple of holes later the same miss would most probably be a lost ball as it's likely to hit some rocks and never be seen again. That's one reason those holes are different and require different swings.

>

> There is no contradiction. A different layout or turf of different golf holes is not the same as a rule that applies different penalties to what is effectively the same swing and result.

 

But the result is very different depending on whether the ball is on or off the course, in a penalty area or in light rough or lost in the woods. A player who doesn't consider these things when planning the next stroke is most likely not a very good golfer. Unfortunately I do know people who blame the tight fairway for their lost ball and not their own club and shot selection.

[Newby]

> @LICC said:

> Because different holes require different swings. My point is that given the same type of hole with the only main difference is one has OB while the other has a pond, the same swing shouldn't have different penalties. That is a an unfairness and illogical inconsistency in the rules.

The player should use different swings for different issues. Dog leg right - fade. Dog leg left - draw. PA at 260 - long iron (say). PA at 150 - driver (say).

PA tight right - favour the left and be careful. OOB tight right - favour the left and be very careful.

Horses for courses. Course management.

 

[Fade]

Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

[LICC]

> @Fade said:

> Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

 

So the penalty should be based on whether there are people OB instead of a non-populated area? It doesn't work that way now.

Let me ask it a different way- why should any golfer be penalized twice for one bad swing in one situation but only penalized once for one bad swing in another situation? Why should there ever be two penalties for one non-intentional bad swing?

[sui generis]

> @Fade said:

> Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

 

Well, Fade, they know all that. You're still going to get replies from players whose bad shots add penalty strokes to their scores . . . they can't stand it.

[davep043]

> @Fade said:

> Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

 

Maybe we should suggest that it is LOGICAL for the rules to increase the penalty for any shot that has the potential to injure an innocent civilian, as compared to shots that remain on the property dedicated to the golfer's use. Since the rules can't define the use of the off-property land, all off-property shots should logically be treated the same.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Fade said:

> > Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> > Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

>

> Maybe we should suggest that it is LOGICAL for the rules to increase the penalty for any shot that has the potential to injure an innocent civilian, as compared to shots that remain on the property dedicated to the golfer's use. Since the rules can't define the use of the off-property land, all off-property shots should logically be treated the same.

 

That still isn't rational. Should off-line shots into an adjoining fairway or toward a tee box of the next hole have an added penalty?

 

To repeat: Let me ask it a different way- why should any golfer be penalized twice for one bad swing in one situation but only penalized once for one bad swing in another situation? Why should there ever be two penalties for one non-intentional bad swing?

[dlygrisse]

> @Pepperturbo said:

> If we could only change complainers into non-complainers and improve their skill from a divot.

 

I have given this some thought, and while I agree with you on principle I think the problem arises with the fact the modern millenial spent his childhood hitting balls off of Astro turf mats and never learned to hit balls off of a beat-up range that was full of divots with little grass and thus had to learn how to hit balls from varied lies out of necessity. I don't blame them, they view life as a video game, it's how they were raised and is not their fault. But alas, I have a solution! Golf simulators and Top Golf offer solutions to this perplexing dilemma. Life isn't fair, but it should be. Right?

[dlygrisse]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @antip said:

> > My one change would be no advice permitted by caddies. The player gets around the course on their own skill, not relying on the best bought caddie who may have intimate knowledge of the golf course, the player's swing or anything else. Level the playing field, sweep away the massive inequity that the rules protect. So no sources of advice permitted in individual competition, you are on your own from the 1st tee to the 18th green.

> > I would limit advice to between partners in a partner-based competition.

>

> That would certainly speed up the game.

 

Nicklaus won the 72 US Open at Pebble with a local gym teacher on the bag. The US Open required local caddies drawn from a lottery into the 1970's. Augusta required local caddies till the 70's as well. Players pulled their own clubs, and read most of their own putts.

[sui generis]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Fade said:

> > Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> > Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

>

> Maybe we should suggest that it is LOGICAL for the rules to increase the penalty for any shot that has the potential to injure an innocent civilian, as compared to shots that remain on the property dedicated to the golfer's use. Since the rules can't define the use of the off-property land, all off-property shots should logically be treated the same.

 

I see the carping coming from players who can't keep it in play. Good players and even plenty of not-so-good players manage their way around using risk/reward thinking to avoid penalty strokes. They seem intelligent enough to resist the urge to blast away and appreciate the consequences associated with a lost ball or out of bounds.

[Roadking2003]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @Fade said:

> > Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> > Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

>

> Well, Fade, they know all that. You're still going to get replies from players whose bad shots add penalty strokes to their scores . . . they can't stand it.

 

I suspect that all golfers can't stand bad shots that add penalty strokes to their scores. I've never met a golfer who likes penalty shots.

[Roadking2003]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Fade said:

> > > Maybe stating the obvious can help the discussion forward!?:

> > > Golfers should not launch projectiles into off-course areas (out of bounds), where they could endanger an innocent general population, or damage their property. The rules of golf should discourage this.

> >

> > Maybe we should suggest that it is LOGICAL for the rules to increase the penalty for any shot that has the potential to injure an innocent civilian, as compared to shots that remain on the property dedicated to the golfer's use. Since the rules can't define the use of the off-property land, all off-property shots should logically be treated the same.

>

> I see the carping coming from players who can't keep it in play. Good players and even plenty of not-so-good players manage their way around using risk/reward thinking to avoid penalty strokes. They seem intelligent enough to resist the urge to blast away and appreciate the consequences associated with a lost ball or out of bounds.

 

So, players who hit OB are stupid because they are not intelligent enough to avoid OB. Players who don't hit OB are intelligent.

 

Does your logic also apply to Tiger? Is he too stupid to avoid OB?