Switching out to a different ball when putting

[Golferpaul]

Just now, davep043 said:

You've provided no real reason for saying the rule "has no real reason to exist".  One of the primary principles of golf is that you play the ball from tee to the hole.  Not "a" ball, not "any" ball, "THE ball.  Over the centuries a large number of exceptions have evolved, but that same general principle applies to this day.  There's no reason to scrap it simply because you find it inconvenient, which seems to be your primary concern.

You have it backwards.  We don't need reasons for a rule NOT to exist.  You need to show a good reason WHY it should exist.  And nobody on the board has made a case for keeping this rule.   

 

And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule.  

[davep043]

18 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

You have it backwards.  We don't need reasons for a rule NOT to exist.  You need to show a good reason WHY it should exist.  And nobody on the board has made a case for keeping this rule.   

 

And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule.  

If we were starting from scratch, with no pre-conceived principles about what the rules should be, or how the game should be played, I might be on your side.  But at this stage, you want to change existing rules.  To make a change, to make your case, you need to be the one providing reasons to make a change.  Continuing to call the rule "useless" with no additional reasoning isn't very persuasive.

[Mr. Bean]

50 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

I mistakenly thought this board was for discussing the rules.  Now I understand that this board is for DEFENDING the rules and only defending the rules produces material that is of "earth-shattering significance". 

 

I'll keep that in mind.

 

Once you give the argument 'rules are stupid' you have lost the battle on this forum. Next time try to find an argument why your proposal would be better from the game of golf point of view instead of your personal feeling.

 

And btw, discussion is about exchanging views and supporting them with arguments. It is not about saying something is stupid because I say so.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

49 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Sharing a spliff is highly encouraged.  Spliffs are not equipment.

 

According to the Definition Equipment is anything used, worn or used by the player. Why do you say a spliff is not Equipment?

 

It pays off to read the Rules once in a while...

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[DaveLeeNC]

On 12/10/2021 at 8:54 PM, davep043 said:

Which rule are you on about?  The Rule that says you play the same ball all the way from the tee into the hole, except in one of the many specific situations when you are allowed to substitute a different ball?  That doesn't seem particularly onerous to me

 

It seems to me that @Golferpaulwants to add another exception (that does not currently exist) in the cause of simplification. Or maybe there is something in his thinking that I don't understand. 

 

dave

[davep043]

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

It seems to me that @Golferpaulwants to add another exception (that does not currently exist) in the cause of simplification. Or maybe there is something in his thinking that I don't understand. 

 

dave

Its quite possible that you're right, he hasn't exactly explained himself beyond the "useless" comment.  

[bobfoster]

5 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

You have it backwards.  We don't need reasons for a rule NOT to exist.  You need to show a good reason WHY it should exist.  And nobody on the board has made a case for keeping this rule.   

 

And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule.  

 

Well, actually, no. The RoG are created, maintained (and sometimes deleted - e.g., you no longer have to take the pin out to putt). by the USGA/R&A. They generally make their arguments for new rules - and are open to input from various interested parties - but once in place it stands unless the are grounds to change it.

 

That said, equipment limitations are part of golf. Players need to make choices, which (IMO) adds a solid structure to the game. There are severe restrictions on the construction of the ball, every club, grooves, etc., etc. And real restrictions on making changes to one's equipment. You cannot, for instance, swap clubs out mid-round (imagine if you could - the pros would swap out  their FWs for two additional wedges on every par three). You have to play with the same ball for an entire hole (you can swap balls for each hole however). Reason being that on the average par five a player might play one off the tee, another on the second shot, another for wedges, and yet another to putt with. Would get ridiculous. 

 

Basic principle behind a lot of these rules is the fundamental theory that club choices need to be made prior to the round, and ball choices have to be made at the beginning of the hole - on any given hole on any given round, the player and his shots - not micro-adjustments to equipment - should be the primary determinant of success. There are plenty exceptions that are quite appropriate. If a club is damaged by "outside forces", or by someone other than the player or caddy, the club can be replaced; you obviously can replace a ball mid hole if you hit one into the water, etc., etc.

 

While the USGA/R&A are usually continually fiddling with the rules - adding or clarifying one here or there - the last major revision took effect 1/1/2019. The result of an exercise where they did a full review of the entire RoG, got rid of some, simplified others, and clarified others. And they did precisely the opposite of what you are saying - they didn't ask what the reason is for the existence of rules, they looked for reasons why any particular rule should not exist or be altered. Same way you look at pruning a tree to keep it healthy: You don't ask "why should that branch be there", you ask "why should it be removed"? It is assumed that once a rule is in place it was justified, and doesn't need an argument to re-justify it, but would need to justify changing or getting rid of it.

 

They did make changes to numerous rules - but not that one. Apparently they considered it still useful and saw no reason to take it out - and truthfully, I completely concur. You may not see a reason for it, but I do.

 

You are obviously free to disagree with the rules committees. In fact, pick any rule in golf, and you'll find golfers that disagree with it (one of the oldest traditions in golf is complaining about the rules hahahaha). Some want to kill a lot of rules. Others think there aren't enough (e.g., more than one WRXer thinks there should be more restrictions on ball construction, to limit the length of drives).

 

However, you are also free to ignore any rule you disagree with (unless you're in a competition, or keeping a handicap). A lot of golfers at least partially ignore (or just don't know) the full RoG. But either way, I really don't see why the one ball per hole is something onerously difficult to comply with. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by bobfoster

[dugue4]

11 hours ago, davep043 said:

If we were starting from scratch, with no pre-conceived principles about what the rules should be, or how the game should be played, I might be on your side. 

I was in agreement on being able to swap balls til you said this.  This argument makes the most sense to me. ( It makes me think of what they have done to the rules of baseball and that’s why I don’t care for the MLB anymore.)

[antip]

On 12/12/2021 at 10:22 AM, Golferpaul said:

So, what's the problem with six balls?  Yes, it would be stupid but so is the one ball rule.

We can agree to disagree on this. One ball makes total sense to me for the elite events. Outside pro tourneys, there are virtually no amateur tournaments that require it anyway in this country (Australia).

[davep043]

 

20 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

It seems to me that @Golferpaulwants to add another exception (that does not currently exist) in the cause of simplification. Or maybe there is something in his thinking that I don't understand. 

 

dave

 

19 hours ago, davep043 said:

Its quite possible that you're right, he hasn't exactly explained himself beyond the "useless" comment.  

Something was niggling at my memory, so I went back to the USGA discussions of the Rules changes. 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/substitution-of-a-ball-always-allowed-when-taking-relief.html

As they now stand, after the 2019 revisions, you may substitute a ball any time you take relief.  You may NOT substitute a ball when a ball must be replaced on its original spot.  That's a pretty clear and simple division.  My opinion, I don't see that changing this to allow substitution for a ball on the green makes things any simpler.

 

[denkea]

21 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule.

And because you deem it 'useless' therefore needs to be ignored?  

[Mr. Bean]

24 minutes ago, davep043 said:

 

 

Something was niggling at my memory, so I went back to the USGA discussions of the Rules changes. 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/substitution-of-a-ball-always-allowed-when-taking-relief.html

As they now stand, after the 2019 revisions, you may substitute a ball any time you take relief.  You may NOT substitute a ball when a ball must be replaced on its original spot.  That's a pretty clear and simple division.  My opinion, I don't see that changing this to allow substitution for a ball on the green makes things any simpler.

 

 

To be totally honest, things would be simpler if one would be allowed to change the ball anytime it is lifted. Would it make sense is another story.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Something was niggling at my memory, so I went back to the USGA discussions of the Rules changes. 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/substitution-of-a-ball-always-allowed-when-taking-relief.html

As they now stand, after the 2019 revisions, you may substitute a ball any time you take relief.  You may NOT substitute a ball when a ball must be replaced on its original spot.  That's a pretty clear and simple division.  My opinion, I don't see that changing this to allow substitution for a ball on the green makes things any simpler.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

To be totally honest, things would be simpler if one would be allowed to change the ball anytime it is lifted. Would it make sense is another story.

 

It is interesting  that the link provided by @davep043 states that simplification is the primary reason for allowing substitution any time that you are taking relief. The change suggested (syntax error - should have said 'referenced') by @Mr. Bean certainly does not introduce any complexity and you could argue that any time the ball is lifted is somewhat simpler than any time you are taking relief. You would need to at least modify the model local rule for 'winter rules' (I assume that no one is advocating choosing the best ball to use for almost every shot). And I wonder if there are some other surprises lurking in there somewhere. 

 

dave 

Edited December 14, 2021 by DaveLeeNC

[Mr. Bean]

8 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

 

It is interesting  that the link provided by @davep043 states that simplification is the primary reason for allowing substitution any time that you are taking relief. The change suggested by @Mr. Bean certainly does not introduce any complexity and you could argue that any time the ball is lifted is somewhat simpler than any time you are taking relief. You would need to at least modify the model local rule for 'winter rules' (I assume that no one is advocating choosing the best ball to use for almost every shot). And I wonder if there are some other surprises lurking in there somewhere. 

 

dave 

 

I have not suggested any change, quite on the contrary. You should read the entire thread before jumping to conclusions.

[Mr. Bean]

9 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

You would need to at least modify the model local rule for 'winter rules' (I assume that no one is advocating choosing the best ball to use for almost every shot).

 

dave 

 

Why? LCP allows change of ball since 1.1.2019.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

To be totally honest, things would be simpler if one would be allowed to change the ball anytime it is lifted. Would it make sense is another story.

 

Simpler, yes.  But it would also allow you to use a clean (substituted) ball any time you lift it, including when you are checking to see if it is embedded, or lifting it to identify it. or any of the other times you are allowed to lift it, but required to replace it on its original spot.  This is would take the game even further away from "play it as it lies", a change I would oppose.  

[DaveLeeNC]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I have not suggested any change, quite on the contrary. You should read the entire thread before jumping to conclusions.

 

I have read the thread but my wording was careless. I changed that. dave

[DaveLeeNC]

42 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Why? LCP allows change of ball since 1.1.2019.

 

Thanks. I not aware of that change and did not realize that under preferred lies (per the model rule) that, assuming no one ball limitation is in place, that I could hit my distance ball off the tee and swap it out for my spinny Pro V1 around the green (assuming that I can keep it in the short grass). I am quite surprised to learn that. FWIW, I am not in favor of allowing that particular action. 

 

dave

Edited December 14, 2021 by DaveLeeNC

[antip]

9 hours ago, davep043 said:

 

 

Something was niggling at my memory, so I went back to the USGA discussions of the Rules changes. 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/substitution-of-a-ball-always-allowed-when-taking-relief.html

As they now stand, after the 2019 revisions, you may substitute a ball any time you take relief.  You may NOT substitute a ball when a ball must be replaced on its original spot.  That's a pretty clear and simple division.  My opinion, I don't see that changing this to allow substitution for a ball on the green makes things any simpler.

 

Agree. Moreover, enabling ball manufacturers the opportunity to create specialised balls for high drives, low running drives, lofted approaches, low approaches, fast green balls, slow green balls, putting specific ball, bunker stroke balls, windy day balls, calm day ball, balls for cold climates and hot climates, balls for skinny lies, etc, etc.... is not my idea of simplification of playing the game or running any events.

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, davep043 said:

 But it would also allow you to use a clean (substituted) ball any time you lift it, including when you are checking to see if it is embedded, or lifting it to identify it. or any of the other times you are allowed to lift it, but required to replace it on its original spot.  This is would take the game even further away from "play it as it lies", a change I would oppose.  

 

Indeed it would but this is the direction the game has already been headed by the RB's by allowing change of ball in so many occasions. I see two reasons for that:

1. Simplification, and

2. No need to ponder whether the original ball is easily retrievable or not.

 

However, preferred lies does not quite fit in the 2nd reason so I wonder why that was changed. Is that only because it is taking relief or is the simplification such a strong factor here? And if so, why not allow change of ball anytime it is lifted?

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[antip]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Indeed it would but this is the direction the game has already been headed by the RB's by allowing change of ball in so many occasions. I see two reasons for that:

1. Simplification, and

2. No need to ponder whether the original ball is easily retrievable or not.

 

However, preferred lies does not quite fit in the 2nd reason so I wonder why that was changed. Is that only because it is taking relief or is the simplification such a strong factor here? And if so, why not allow change of ball anytime it is lifted?

 

One reason only: to allow/affirm the statement ANYTIME other than replacing the ball, you may change the ball. I would prefer to remove this new preferred lies feature - I think such limited exception from that general principle is justified. 

[jobin]

I believe if ball is 'embedded' the ball can be lifted, cleaned (or substituted) and dropped behind the spot. 

Whether one can lift the ball to check if embedded, i do not know. Once the ball is lifted, getting back to original lie very difficult, in this case.

 

Frankly i like to change the ball, usually only a new color, when permitted if only to aggravate the arsewholes (sic) in my group.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, jobin said:

I believe if ball is 'embedded' the ball can be lifted, cleaned (or substituted) and dropped behind the spot. 

Whether one can lift the ball to check if embedded, i do not know. Once the ball is lifted, getting back to original lie very difficult, in this case.

 

Frankly i like to change the ball, usually only a new color, when permitted if only to aggravate the arsewholes (sic) in my group.

You can mark and lift your ball if necessary to find out if you are entitled to relief.

[davep043]

2 hours ago, jobin said:

Whether one can lift the ball to check if embedded, i do not know.

Please please PLEASE use whatever platform you use to access golfWRX to also access the Rules of Golf.  Its really not difficult, and you stand to learn a whole lot.

[nsxguy]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:59 AM, Mr. Bean said:

 

If I should miss a one foot putt I sure would go straight home 😆

 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

 

The 1st one is 1,5 feet so no reason to go home 😎

[rogolf]

And nobody went to their bag to get their favorite putting ball for the next putt!

[Golferpaul]

On 12/13/2021 at 10:49 AM, Mr. Bean said:

 

Once you give the argument 'rules are stupid' you have lost the battle on this forum. Next time try to find an argument why your proposal would be better from the game of golf point of view instead of your personal feeling.

 

And btw, discussion is about exchanging views and supporting them with arguments. It is not about saying something is stupid because I say so.

 

I never said "rules are stupid" so stop lying.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

16 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

 

 

I apologize, you did not say the rules are stupid. You said

 

'And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule. '

 

I take you mean the same thing...

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Golferpaul]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I apologize, you did not say the rules are stupid. You said

 

'And no, my "primary concern" is that it's a useless rule. '

 

I take you mean the same thing...

 

 

I mean exactly what I posted.  There is a huge difference between saying "Rules are stupid" and calling the topic rule "useless." 

I still think the rule prohibiting changing to a clean ball on the green is useless.