Animosity Towards the Rules

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

For me, the problem is that there are rules that impact scores where the infraction had little to no effect on the shot.  For example, Dustin Johnson gets penalized for grounding his club in a 'sand trap', when it was nothing more than a splotch of sand.  John Rahm gets penalized two strokes for making the ball move, when the slight wobble that occurred and could only be seen in slo-mo closeup had zero impact on the shot.  Lexi Thompson gets penalized FOUR STROKES for a video review that showed her marking her ball about an eighth of an inch off of the original spot, then signing a scorecard at the end of the round that didn't reflect the violation, which she had absolutely no knowledge of.  Anna Nordqvist is penalized in a U.S. Open playoff because an ultra-slow-motion replay shows she touched a literal grain of sand in her backswing in a trap.  Roberto DeVicenzo loses the masters because he signs for a score that is HIGHER than what he actually posted.

 

And given the pros don't seem to know the rules, I highly doubt any recreational player knows anything more than hit ball, play ball where it lies (though I play with plenty of folks who ignore that one), put ball in hole.

 

It is absolutely necessary for many Rules to be totally black & white. If they were not we would end up in endless discussions whether a player has had advantage by their breach or not and that would be disastrous to pace of play.

 

FWIW, for a couple of years now a slow-motion camera has not been sufficient to penalize a player. The movement of a ball has to be distinctive enough to be seen with naked eye. Also Lexi would get only 2 penalty strokes for her breach since 1.1.2019. That DeVicenzo case I am not familiar with but isn't it the player's own stupidity if he does not check his OWN scorecard before signing it? Marking and signing a score too high on a hole does not get you DQ'd but you just lose by the extra stroke(s) you have marked.

[jordan2240]

Seems to me this was a stupid rule.  Thankfully it was changed.  Merely evidence that they do exist:

Billy Horschel at the Masters 2016 - Golf Rules Explained - YouTube

[antip]

11 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Some recreational players know the rules better than a lot of pros.  

 

The usga/ra don't do themselves any favors by changing irrelevant things like how to drop the ball or the change of water hazard to penalty area.  

IMO, water hazard out and penalty area in was one of the most valuable changes, for two reasons:

a) there was absolutely no logic in retaining the link to water; and

b) it provides a new, valuable tool to Committees to determine the nature of the golfing challenge they want their course to present to players.

[Shipwreck]

I’m glad that the R&A and USGA are now being more proactive about changing rules that can seem a little antiquated, the speed at which they move though leaves much to be desired. 

[jordan2240]

33 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It is absolutely necessary for many Rules to be totally black & white. If they were not we would end up in endless discussions whether a player has had advantage by their breach or not and that would be disastrous to pace of play.

 

FWIW, for a couple of years now a slow-motion camera has not been sufficient to penalize a player. The movement of a ball has to be distinctive enough to be seen with naked eye. Also Lexi would get only 2 penalty strokes for her breach since 1.1.2019. That DeVicenzo case I am not familiar with but isn't it the player's own stupidity if he does not check his OWN scorecard before signing it? Marking and signing a score too high on a hole does not get you DQ'd but you just lose by the extra stroke(s) you have marked.

The 'naked eye' caveat is not well-defined as far as I can tell, as players are being penalized for things that are being picked up in close-up, slow-motion video that were not seen with the naked-eye of anyone involved during the shot.  Ancer's recent penalty for touching a small mound of sand on his backswing is another example, as was Lexi's misplacement of the ball by a tiny amount and Nordqvist's touching of a minute bit of sand.  Same applies to Rahm's wobble.   Yes, De Vicenzo made a critical error, and perhaps that does not fall in the same category as the others, but was merely an unfortunate circumstance.  My personal preference on making the ball move would be that it has to be intentional.  If it simply wobbles, ignore it.  Anything more significant than a wobble, just replace it where it was and continue.

[jordan2240]

Prior to the recent rules change, I believe that if you were going into a bunker and accidentally dropped your club or slipped and caught yourself with your hand, you were penalized.  That was a stupid rule.

[Halebopp]

16 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

The 'naked eye' caveat is not well-defined as far as I can tell, as players are being penalized for things that are being picked up in close-up, slow-motion video that were not seen with the naked-eye of anyone involved during the shot.  Ancer's recent penalty for touching a small mound of sand on his backswing is another example, as was Lexi's misplacement of the ball by a tiny amount and Nordqvist's touching of a minute bit of sand.  Same applies to Rahm's wobble.   Yes, De Vicenzo made a critical error, and perhaps that does not fall in the same category as the others, but was merely an unfortunate circumstance.  My personal preference on making the ball move would be that it has to be intentional.  If it simply wobbles, ignore it.  Anything more significant than a wobble, just replace it where it was and continue.

 

The only issue with the naked eye standard, in my opinion, is its existence. It's a needless grey area. But there's nothing wrong with its definition. video footage can be used to determine whether or not the movement could've been seen with the naked eye.

 

As for the other issues, even a blind monkey could've done a better job of replacing the ball than Lexi, who has a history of disregarding the rules, Nordqvist wanted to make a better stroke (and gain an advantage) by hovering her club so close to the sand and DeVicenzo attested his score to be correct. I don't understand how anyone could blame the rules for these incidents.

[MG_TX]

I think people hate what they don't understand. The rules of golf are not as clear cut as other sports, so it can lead to some reactions where the rules feel antiquated, dumb or downright penalizing. My issue is that the interpretations can vary based on who is explaining/applying them. How many times have we heard "he used that rule to his advantage". I think that speaks to how those who find the nuance in each rule to benefit them while others have no idea a rule can be "bent" or "applied" to their favor. It's probably the fault of the player/caddy for not understanding the rules, but for me that speaks to the bigger issue of how the rules are confusing at best.  

[Halebopp]

12 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

Prior to the recent rules change, I believe that if you were going into a bunker and accidentally dropped your club or slipped and caught yourself with your hand, you were penalized.  That was a stupid rule.

 

Herein lies one of the big problems. People come up with rules of their own and then put the blame on the actual Rules of Golf.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It is absolutely necessary for many Rules to be totally black & white. If they were not we would end up in endless discussions whether a player has had advantage by their breach or not and that would be disastrous to pace of play.

 

FWIW, for a couple of years now a slow-motion camera has not been sufficient to penalize a player. The movement of a ball has to be distinctive enough to be seen with naked eye. Also Lexi would get only 2 penalty strokes for her breach since 1.1.2019. That DeVicenzo case I am not familiar with but isn't it the player's own stupidity if he does not check his OWN scorecard before signing it? Marking and signing a score too high on a hole does not get you DQ'd but you just lose by the extra stroke(s) you have marked.

As to Roberto, yes, hence his famous comment, "What a stupid I am."

 

Interesting on Lexi - fewer strokes but . . . . she still cheated and deserved whatever the rules had in store for her (for the benefit of the person thinking she didn't do anything wrong).

[Hawkeye77]

I've never encountered anyone that hates the rules of golf. Most golfers I play with are pretty good about applying them and want to understand what the particular rule is if there is a situation.

 

Seems like:

 

Some people try and intend to play by the rules of golf and are earnest about being familiar with the rules.

 

Some people try to play by the rules of golf most of the time and gimmes are made an "exception" in casual games.

 

Some people think they play be the rules but have all sorts of personal exceptions or misunderstandings of the rules and simply don't come close.

 

Some just don't care and play however they want.

 

If it doesn't affect me, play how you want.

 

[sui generis]

56 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

Prior to the recent rules change, I believe that if you were going into a bunker and accidentally dropped your club or slipped and caught yourself with your hand, you were penalized.  That was a stupid rule.

 

What kind of claptrap is this? I know, you heard it from a guy who heard it from his brother-in-law. Well, if there's an element of "stupid" it's all three of you. 🙄

[jordan2240]

15 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Herein lies one of the big problems. People come up with rules of their own and then put the blame on the actual Rules of Golf.

The issue, from my standpoint, has nothing to do with making up rules, but the application of some of the rules that exist.  Rules should be such that, if they are broken, the player breaking them gains an advantage.  Hitting a grain of sand that can only be picked up in high-def, slow-motion in your backswing does not gain you an advantage.  The ball wobbling as you place your club behind it does not gain you an advantage.  Signing for a higher score does not gain you an advantage.  I get it, rules are rules, and I follow every rule I know in golf, and error on the side of caution when I don't know the rule (although since I hardly ever keep score, it doesn't matter anyway), but that doesn't mean I don't have 'animosity' towards some of them.

[jordan2240]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

What kind of claptrap is this? I know, you heard it from a guy who heard it from his brother-in-law. Well, if there's an element of "stupid" it's all three of you. 🙄

Pretty sure that isn't 'claptrap'.

[jordan2240]

21 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

As to Roberto, yes, hence his famous comment, "What a stupid I am."

 

Interesting on Lexi - fewer strokes but . . . . she still cheated and deserved whatever the rules had in store for her (for the benefit of the person thinking she didn't do anything wrong).

I think 'cheated' might be a bit harsh, as, to me at least, cheating implies intent.  The issue isn't whether or not she violated the rules, it's the rules themselves.

[Halebopp]

1 minute ago, jordan2240 said:

The issue, from my standpoint, has nothing to do with making up rules, but the application of some of the rules that exist.  Rules should be such that, if they are broken, the player breaking them gains an advantage.  Hitting a grain of sand that can only be picked up in high-def, slow-motion in your backswing does not gain you an advantage.  The ball wobbling as you place your club behind it does not gain you an advantage.  Signing for a higher score does not gain you an advantage.  I get it, rules are rules, and I follow every rule I know in golf, and error on the side of caution when I don't know the rule (although since I hardly ever keep score, it doesn't matter anyway), but that doesn't mean I don't have 'animosity' towards some of them.

 

1. You were saying the old rules were stupid using a made-up rule as an example.

2. In the sand example the player gains an obvious advantage from hovering the club close to the sand. If it didn't matter, everyone would simply skip the backswing altogether. Plus where would you draw the line on how much the Conditions Affecting the Stroke could be improved before an advantage was gained?

3. There's no penalty if a ball only wobbles

4. De Vicenzo was not penalised for his actions because there's no penalty for certifying a higher score on any given hole.

[King_Slender]

15 hours ago, CactusGolf said:

Straight forward?  Meh, sure.  I think they can get a bit hard to follow sometimes.

 

Until I can move a ball out of a fairway divot, I'll always have contempt for them.

 

When does a divot no longer become a divot as it grows in? 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, jordan2240 said:

Prior to the recent rules change, I believe that if you were going into a bunker and accidentally dropped your club or slipped and caught yourself with your hand, you were penalized.  That was a stupid rule.

 

No, wrong again, you were not penalized. It was clearly stated in the Rules and  Decisions.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, jordan2240 said:

The 'naked eye' caveat is not well-defined as far as I can tell, as players are being penalized for things that are being picked up in close-up, slow-motion video that were not seen with the naked-eye of anyone involved during the shot.  

 

So if I hit my ball with my eyes closed I cannot be penalized because I did not see me making a breach, is that what you are saying? No, I do not think that is what you mean but it sure sounds like that.

 

The Rules with Interpretations and Clarifications tell us that any movement of a ball or similar that cannot be seen with naked eye is not a breach (in principle). It does not matter if the player in question did not see but it matters if he SHOULD have seen it. There lies the difference.

 

For example, a player (cannot remember who) some months ago putted on the green and his ball hit a small insect. The player nor any other in the group saw that collision and there was no deflection in the path of the ball. John Paramor took the player up after the round, showed him a video of the incident and asked him whether he saw the collision. As the player had not seen it he was not penalized. As you see, slo-mo does not always mean a penalty.

[dugue4]

deleted

 

found my answer

Edited April 20, 2021 by dugue4

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, dugue4 said:

What defines moved vs wobble?  If it returns to original position?

 

Yes. A ball is moved if it moves permanently away from it's position.

[Halebopp]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So if I hit my ball with my eyes closed I cannot be penalized because I did not see me making a breach, is that what you are saying? No, I do not think that is what you mean but it sure sounds like that.

 

The Rules with Interpretations and Clarifications tell us that any movement of a ball or similar that cannot be seen with naked eye is not a breach (in principle). It does not matter if the player in question did not see but it matters if he SHOULD have seen it. There lies the difference.

 

For example, a player (cannot remember who) some months ago putted on the green and his ball hit a small insect. The player nor any other in the group saw that collision and there was no deflection in the path of the ball. John Paramor took the player up after the round, showed him a video of the incident and asked him whether he saw the collision. As the player had not seen it he was not penalized. As you see, slo-mo does not always mean a penalty.

 

Paul Casey: 

 

Ortiz's 2nd stroke on hole 16 on round 1 at the Masters was a similar incident unless it went unnoticed by the committee.

 

 

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

For example, a player (cannot remember who) some months ago putted on the green and his ball hit a small insect. The player nor any other in the group saw that collision and there was no deflection in the path of the ball. John Paramor took the player up after the round, showed him a video of the incident and asked him whether he saw the collision. As the player had not seen it he was not penalized. As you see, slo-mo does not always mean a penalty.

 

So would that have been an outside agency and he would have been required to replay the shot?

 

^ Typed that before the vid was posted.

Edited April 20, 2021 by smashdn

[Hawkeye77]

31 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

I think 'cheated' might be a bit harsh, as, to me at least, cheating implies intent.  The issue isn't whether or not she violated the rules, it's the rules themselves.

Except you cited that as an example of the rules being stupid.  She placed her mark to (apparently if you like, pretty intentionally the way it looked to me) avoid what I recall was a spike mark or some obvious imperfection in the green.  Innocent or not it was as violation of the rules and certainly not "harmless", though that doesn't matter.

[Mr. Bean]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

So would that have been an outside agency and he would have been required to replay the shot?

 

^ Typed that before the vid was posted.

 

Yes.

[jordan2240]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Except you cited that as an example of the rules being stupid.  She placed her mark to (apparently if you like, pretty intentionally the way it looked to me) avoid what I recall was a spike mark or some obvious imperfection in the green.  Innocent or not it was as violation of the rules and certainly not "harmless", though that doesn't matter.

Couldn't tell you how many times I've marked my ball, and then totally forgot which side I marked it on when replacing it.  Unless your marker is the size of a dinner plate, it really shouldn't matter.  And now I'm going to go actually play golf rather than talking about it, so carry on.

Edited April 20, 2021 by jordan2240

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, jordan2240 said:

Couldn't tell you how many times I've marked my ball, and then totally forgot which side I marked it on when replacing it.  Unless your marker is the size of a dinner plate, it really shouldn't matter.  

I can usually remember I put it directly behind the ball and not in front. 😉

 

And, it matters a lot.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[jordan2240]

One more before I go - how 'bout the rule where you were penalized for stepping on your ball while looking for it.  I guess that wasn't stupid either.

[Mr. Bean]

6 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

One more before I go - how 'bout the rule where you were penalized for stepping on your ball while looking for it.  I guess that wasn't stupid either.

 

Depends on how you look at the big picture of the Rules. Is it stupid to penalize a player for stepping on his own ball when NOT looking for it?

 

The reason for the change in the Rules was AFAIK to speed up the search. This was necessary as the search time was reduced.

[Halebopp]

8 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

One more before I go - how 'bout the rule where you were penalized for stepping on your ball while looking for it.  I guess that wasn't stupid either.

 

You're busy building a straw man. No is saying there aren't, or hasn't been any rules they didn't agree with.

 

But regarding your comment about marking the ball, it seems like you simply want the rules to accommodate the way you play the game and find other ways stupid.