Animosity Towards the Rules

[smashdn]

12 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.

 

Seems straightforward.  Don't move your ball.  Fundamentally, if you don't move or cause your ball to move you are in good shape in the vast majority of circumstances.  That is why there (imo) needs to be a very long look at any rule or situation that puts the ball in the hand of the golfer.  Playing it as you found it is fundamental.  Not affecting the lie or ability/inability to get a club on it is fundamental.  

 

As someone on another thread cited, you can always replay a shot under penalty if you don't like your current circumstances.

[2bGood]

5 hours 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.  And now I'm going to go actually play golf rather than talking about it, so carry on.

I must of marked a ball a few thousand times last year, can't say I ever forgot what 'side' I marked my ball on. Mark goes behind ball. Replace ball in-front of mark. repeat. If you are claiming this action is difficult to execute you are being purposely obtuse. 

 

Regardless, I will play along - you think it should not matter? Marking and replacing your ball in a different location can be used to avoid something on the green you don't want to putt over or change the angle of break, but in extreme cases you have the good old inch worm, guys that 'mis-mark' the same a ball a few times to inch over or forward to significantly alter the putt. 

 

So how would you change the rule? Would you say a player can mark their ball and replace it within 1" (now you have to worry about measuring that), and they can only mark it once? Do you really think this would be a better rule? 

 

Let me know how you would improve this rule to make it better?

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by 2bGood

[jholz]

This is a highly intriguing question/topic, and one that I think resonates through so much of our society today. Questioning the ROG and the institutions that uphold those rules is not that much different from the questioning of other large institutions/bureaucracies that is going on these days. And much of that questioning comes in the form of "annoyance" or animosity. 

 

People look at the ROG and say why? Why does it have to be this way?

 

The simple answer is always "because."

 

That "because" represents the amalgamated knowledge and experience the institution has gained over the past hundred or so odd years, trying to do the best job they can. More often than not, the "solutions" offered by critics are things that have already been suggested, fully explored, and found to be lacking. 

 

I'm not saying that we should blindly trust institutions, nor that we should never question them. But, more often than not, the problems we are complaining about are much larger and more complex than people realize and no perfect solution exists. 

 

This is the messy, complicated world we live in.  

[dlygrisse]

We now have a couple of generations of people raised believing life is fair, that they always get their way if they cry loud enough, and mommy and daddy will give them a hug and tell them they are awesome no matter how bad they screw up.  Mommy and daddy will also go chew out the authorities that disciplined them instead of holding them accountable for their misbehavior.  Lawsuits will be filed, peoples opinions will be canceled, and now property will be destroyed till they get what they want.  They will rant and rave on the internet and social media till they influence enough people to buy in to their beliefs.  

 

I understand this isn't true for everyone, but it seems to be the general attitude of most people under 30 years old.  Even if they don't think this way in general, they were raised in an environment where many around them were, so it's normalized behavior.  

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

37 minutes ago, jholz said:

This is a highly intriguing question/topic, and one that I think resonates through so much of our society today. Questioning the ROG and the institutions that uphold those rules is not that much different from the questioning of other large institutions/bureaucracies that is going on these days. And much of that questioning comes in the form of "annoyance" or animosity. 

 

People look at the ROG and say why? Why does it have to be this way?

 

The simple answer is always "because."

 

That "because" represents the amalgamated knowledge and experience the institution has gained over the past hundred or so odd years, trying to do the best job they can. More often than not, the "solutions" offered by critics are things that have already been suggested, fully explored, and found to be lacking. 

 

I'm not saying that we should blindly trust institutions, nor that we should never question them. But, more often than not, the problems we are complaining about are much larger and more complex than people realize and no perfect solution exists. 

 

This is the messy, complicated world we live in.  

 

Very good post. The Rules of Golf are not simple because the game is far from simple due to the outdoor nature of it. In the vast majority of cases when someone says 'that rule is stupid' that person neither sees nor understands the full concept of the Rules or that particular Rule and it's  relation with other Rules. It takes a lot of time and effort to know and understand the Rules on such level that they begin make sense.

[Sawgrass]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Very good post. The Rules of Golf are not simple because the game is far from simple due to the outdoor nature of it. In the vast majority of cases when someone says 'that rule is stupid' that person neither sees nor understands the full concept of the Rules or that particular Rule and it's  relation with other Rules. It takes a lot of time and effort to know and understand the Rules on such level that they begin make sense.

I completely agree, and note that while I spend a good deal of my time discussing the rules with very capable people, some of whom are here on this site, I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered an educated rules person who felt a rule was “stupid” or held animosity toward them in general.

 

These people may desire changes, may desire the rules be more explicit in ways, but all recognize that a rule that may seem odd in a particular application has justification when viewed in a more comprehensive way.

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I completely agree, and note that while I spend a good deal of my time discussing the rules with very capable people, some of whom are here on this site, I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered an educated rules person who felt a rule was “stupid” or held animosity toward them in general.

 

 

Let me tell you which Rule was really really stupid.

 

Once upon a time a player received 2 penalty strokes when hitting the flagstick from the putting green. Fine. But also it was forbidden to move a flagstick lying on the ground if a putted ball was about to strike it. If you moved it you received 2 penalty strokes. Now THAT was a stupid Rule IMHO. Fortunately those days have passed long time ago.

[oikos1]

Lol.  It's golf.  It's a game.  Comparing the ruling bodies of golf to the bureaucratic institutions who oversee the social order of the citizens who live under that order is a bit of a stretch. 

 

I wonder where women, minorities and other oppressed groups "annoyance" would be today if they just accepted the simple answer "because"?

 

Maybe just stick to golf and the reasons why people play with modified rules, which most certainly has been occurring since the inception of golf.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Let me tell you which Rule was really really stupid.

 

Once upon a time a player received 2 penalty strokes when hitting the flagstick from the putting green. Fine. But also it was forbidden to move a flagstick lying on the ground if a putted ball was about to strike it. If you moved it you received 2 penalty strokes. Now THAT was a stupid Rule IMHO. Fortunately those days have passed long time ago.

Like you, I prefer things as they are now in regard to the flagstick.  But I completely disagree that the previous, less-favorable rule -- which applied consistency to not being allowed to move obstructions while your ball was in motion, was "stupid."  (I'd call it rational but less than ideal.)

 

Nevertheless, you are most certainly a knowledgeable rules person, so I stand corrected in my previous assertion that you would not have thought a rule to be stupid.  You clearly do, I revert to simply disagreeing with you.

[Mr. Bean]

21 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

Like you, I prefer things as they are now in regard to the flagstick.  But I completely disagree that the previous, less-favorable rule -- which applied consistency to not being allowed to move obstructions while your ball was in motion, was "stupid."  (I'd call it rational but less than ideal.)

 

 

The reason why it was stupid IMO is that should you happen to strike your ball too hard and it travels towards the attended pin lying on the ground you have no escape. If you do nothing you get 2 PS. If you lift the pin you get 2 PS. I could never understand why that pin was not to be lifted. Maybe you can explain to me why you feel it was a rational Rule and I will not regard that Rule stupid. Here's your chance!

[Sawgrass]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

The reason why it was stupid IMO is that should you happen to strike your ball too hard and it travels towards the attended pin lying on the ground you have no escape. If you do nothing you get 2 PS. If you lift the pin you get 2 PS. I could never understand why that pin was not to be lifted. Maybe you can explain to me why you feel it was a rational Rule and I will not regard that Rule stupid. Here's your chance!

I already tried above. The old rule prohibited you from moving all movable obstructions from the path of your ball in motion, as well as prohibiting you from moving LIs in similar circumstances. Now you can move some things but not others. It’s now more complicated, though perhaps more fair.  It had been less complicated but more penal. Neither was stupid, at least by my way of thinking. 

[jordan2240]

8 hours ago, 2bGood said:

I must of marked a ball a few thousand times last year, can't say I ever forgot what 'side' I marked my ball on. Mark goes behind ball. Replace ball in-front of mark. repeat. If you are claiming this action is difficult to execute you are being purposely obtuse. 

 

Regardless, I will play along - you think it should not matter? Marking and replacing your ball in a different location can be used to avoid something on the green you don't want to putt over or change the angle of break, but in extreme cases you have the good old inch worm, guys that 'mis-mark' the same a ball a few times to inch over or forward to significantly alter the putt. 

 

So how would you change the rule? Would you say a player can mark their ball and replace it within 1" (now you have to worry about measuring that), and they can only mark it once? Do you really think this would be a better rule? 

 

Let me know how you would improve this rule to make it better?

 

 

I'd set a size maximum for a ball marker (like American penny-sized for example), then not worry about where it was replaced.  Not that I think it's a rule worth fretting over, as unless you get every ball marking on video, it's not something that can be enforced anyway.  From what I read in one of my golf mags, there are pros with a rep for loose replacement technique.  Unfortunately, Lexi happened to be in the lead when her incident occurred - though it was only noted a day later because some viewer must have felt the great integrity of the game had been assaulted.

[Mr. Bean]

18 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

I'd set a size maximum for a ball marker (like American penny-sized for example), then not worry about where it was replaced.  Not that I think it's a rule worth fretting over, as unless you get every ball marking on video, it's not something that can be enforced anyway. 

 

In golf it is the player who enforces it. I wonder if you have heard of that. It is called integrity.

[jordan2240]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

In golf it is the player who enforces it. I wonder if you have heard of that. It is called integrity.

Player couldn't really enforce something they didn't realize they had done.  If I truly forgot how I marked my ball, am I supposed to call a penalty on myself because I might have replaced my ball incorrectly?  I know all about integrity fella.

[jordan2240]

9 hours ago, Halebopp said:

it seems like you simply want the rules to accommodate the way you play the game and find other ways stupid.

WRONG.  Everyone I play with will tell you I follow the rules to a 'T', at least as far as I know them.  If fact, many often criticize me for wanting to play by the rules. Never 'fluff' a lie (even in winter and in the league I play in that allows it), don't take gimmies, always play the ball where it lies, even if I might be entitled to relief, etc. etc.  But I can still think some of the rules are stupid.

Edited April 20, 2021 by jordan2240

[Mr. Bean]

12 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

Player couldn't really enforce something they didn't realize they had done.  If I truly forgot how I marked my ball, am I supposed to call a penalty on myself because I might have replaced my ball incorrectly?

 

Yes, you are. If you do not remember where you had marked your ball there isn't a half a chance you could replace it.

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[sui generis]

11 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

WRONG.  Everyone I play with will tell you I follow the rules to a 'T', at least as far as I know them.  If fact, many often criticize me for wanting to play by the rules. Never 'fluff' a lie (even in winter and in the league I play in that allows it), don't take gimmies, always play the ball where it lies, even if I might be entitled to relief, etc. etc.  But I can still think some of the rules are stupid.

 

There's an old saying, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Bud, you're in a hole of your own making and it gets deeper and deeper with every post of yours. 🙄

[rogolf]

I always mark my ball the same way - put the marker immediately behind the ball.  And I would suggest that higher than 99% of players do it the same way.  If you can't remember how you marked your ball, then your process is suspect and  I'd suggest you find and use a reliable method so you can remember and appear suspicious.

IIRC, the LPGA used to provide guidance on marking - immediately behind and if you looked straight down at the ball and marker you should see two interlocking circles.

Marking, lifting and replacing is important, and not hard.

Edited April 21, 2021 by rogolf

[RSinSG]

On 4/19/2021 at 5:51 PM, Fade said:

As with other things that are somewhat difficult , for example mathematics, 

That reminds me of the guy who was asked what was the last book he read that made him cry and he said his algebra book. 

[2bGood]

14 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

I'd set a size maximum for a ball marker (like American penny-sized for example), then not worry about where it was replaced. 

Sure a size maximum sounds reasonable. But now the part with where you don't need to worry where you replace your ball?🤨. Since I don't need to worry about where I replace my ball - can I go 4" in front of the marker? I assume you want to add a rule that the ball has to touch the mark or be certain distance from it? I also have to assume you want a rule that you could not re-mark your ball as that provides an option to move the ball several times and move it a significant distance. This new rule of yours is getting bit more complicated and wordy.

 

Current rule:

 

The spot of the ball must be marked before it is lifted and the ball must be replaced on its original spot 

 

Well that seems pretty straight forward? Not sure why we have to change this 'stupid' rule anyway? 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by 2bGood

[oikos1]

This thread has so much potential.  "Rules guy" going to be losing their minds...

[pingfool]

No problem playing by the rules of golf

 

Playing with the “rules guy” in your group

can often be a problem

 

guessing a few of the regulars here may fit that description

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

This thread has so much potential.  "Rules guy" going to be losing their minds...

We were probably out of our minds to become "rules guys" in the first instance;  so not that much to lose.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Colin L

[sui generis]

4 hours ago, pingfool said:

No problem playing by the rules of golf

 

Playing with the “rules guy” in your group

can often be a problem

 

guessing a few of the regulars here may fit that description

 

"Rules guys" learn early on that you don't referee your own group. Answer questions? Sure, but that's it. 🙂

[jordan2240]

6 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Sure a size maximum sounds reasonable. But now the part with where you don't need to worry where you replace your ball?🤨. Since I don't need to worry about where I replace my ball - can I go 4" in front of the marker? I assume you want to add rule that ball has to touch the mark or be certain distance from it? I also have to assume you want a rule that you could not re-mark your ball as that provides an option to move the ball several times and move it as significant distance. This new rule of yours is getting bit more complicated an wordy.

 

Current rule:

 

The spot of the ball must be marked before it is lifted and the ball must be replaced on its original spot 

 

Well that seems pretty straight forward? Not sure why we have to change this 'stupid' rule anyway? 

 

 

I'm really not interested in changing that rule.  The conversation devolved because of some of the attacks, but my original point was that the rules that penalized Lexi Thompson 4 strokes a day after a viewer-noted violation that was ever-so-slight and was only seen because of modern technology didn't seem particularly just to me.  Seems the golfing world agreed, as the rules were changed to prevent such from happening again.

[jordan2240]

6 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

"Rules guys" learn early on that you don't referee your own group. Answer questions? Sure, but that's it. 🙂

Frankly, I'd love for someone I play with to know the rules, but if you are simply playing recreationally, there's generally little reason to, for example,  spend the time needed to take out your driver and measure two appropriate club lengths from the 'penalty area' rather than just dropping your ball in the general area.  For the speed of the game on public courses anyway, it's better that the rules aren't followed to the letter.  

[Hawkeye77]

38 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

I'm really not interested in changing that rule.  The conversation devolved because of some of the attacks, but my original point was that the rules that penalized Lexi Thompson 4 strokes a day after a viewer-noted violation that was ever-so-slight and was only seen because of modern technology didn't seem particularly just to me.  Seems the golfing world agreed, as the rules were changed to prevent such from happening again.

So you've said over and over and over.

 

Your claim - she moved the ball 1/8 of an inch - not even close and her mark was right there, she picks up the ball just a touch (obviously looking at it) and puts it right back and clearly in a different spot and significantly so in relation to her coin.  Her intent?  Don't know.  Watch the video?  You may be the only person that believes she can be looking at that and not be knowing what she's up to, and to avoid an issue between her ball and the hole.

 

The golfing world didn't agree - the rules regarding marking weren't changed because someone felt sorry for Lexi.  She felt sorry for herself afterward, in a big way . . . . until she got the puppy.

[jordan2240]

U.S. Amateur championship (I think that was the tourney), kid loses the last hole and subsequently the match because his caddie, a guy he didn't even know, touched the sand.  The rules should never have allowed that to happen.  Referees should have the ability to make a judgement call on whether a technical violation actually gave the golfer an advantage, and override the by-the-book ruling as appropriate. 

 

In the 2008 World Series, the Phillies lead game five through the sixth inning, when it was called because of rain.  By the rules, the game should have been over, but an exception was made to complete the game (which the Phillies still won, thankfully).  Rules are there to prevent players from having an unfair advantage, which is always subject to judgement.

[jordan2240]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The golfing world didn't agree - the rules regarding marking weren't changed because someone felt sorry for Lexi.

The rules regarding viewer call-in were changed, to my knowledge.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by jordan2240

[Hawkeye77]

4 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

The rules regarding viewer call-in were changed, to my knowledge.  

 

Correct.  Changed because the Tours felt sorry for Lexi Thompson? No.