Weighty proposal for rewrite of the Rules

[Fourputt]

Quote:

You asked a question about dropping rules didn't you? Try looking in Rule 20.

Why not answer his question instead of being an ass?

[saevel25]

Quote:

But I don't think this case is so clear.  Suppose I hit a tee ball into the woods and take a 2 club length drop for an unplayable lie and watch the ball roll back to the original spot.  If my understanding of the rules is correct, I don't think I am then allowed to go back to the tee- having forfeited that option when I took my 2 club length drop.  So if I hit the ball into the woods, and take a drop for an unplayable lie and after taking a drop my ball ends up Out of Bounds, do I then go back to the tee?  This seems counter-intuitive.  I suppose I could try hunting through the decisions, but the most obvious place for this to be explained would be decision

1st) woods does not mean OB. WHITE STAKES mean OB. So if you do not cross white stakes. Then you take an unplayable lie penalty, and if the ball rolls back to an unplayable lie, then you have to do it again, under penalty, unless the ball rolls towards the hole, then you get to drop again. A ball is in play once its dropped, unless it rolls back into the Hazard or closer to the hole.

So, if you, lets say hit a ball into the woods, just in, but doesn't cross the white stakes, and then drop the ball, lets say it hits a rock. It bounces OB. Under Rule 20-2c, you must re drop. Its one of the conditions allowed for a re-drop. If you continue to drop it OB, then place the ball in play.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Under the current dropping rules, it is possible to drop a ball and have it wind up Out of Bounds with you being unable to re-drop and required to play it as an OOB.  When this happens, where do you play your next stroke from under rule 27-1?

Under the current dropping rules and the quantum rules of physics it is possible for you to drop a ball and have it hover above the ground, or even fly up out of sight.  They aren't going to change the rules for that, either.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No.  The rule still states "the spot from which the original ball was last played ".  As long as you haven't made a stroke after the drop, you still have the option of returning to the last point where a stroke was made (although the penalty stroke for the drop still counts).  Only if you attempt to play a stroke and fail, then choose to proceed under Rule 28 are you stuck because you can only go back to the last stroke.

In a water hazard it's stated slightly differently, so you get regression to the last point where the ball crossed into the hazard.  Thus any stroke(s) made in the hazard count, but you can still get out of the hazard by taking the penalty under Rule 26-1.  That safety net doesn't exist under Rule 28.

So you are saying that you can take an unplayable lie drop, not like the outcome and then head back to where you originally played from.  i.e. You hit your tee ball into some bushes, take a drop from the bushes only to see it roll back into the same bush- now you can hike back to the tee hitting 4?  I miss-understood this as I was under the impression that once your drop was in play, you lost the option of going back to the tee.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Why not answer his question instead of being an ass?

Perhaps, I misunderstood the question. It seemed to me that he took a drop for some legitimate reason and the ball rolled OB. He then went to Rule 27 to see what to do. Not surprisingly, he found no guidance in Rule 27.

As to the assness of my suggestion that he look in Rule 20 where it informs the player of what to do when a dropped ball rolls OB, I plead guilty to the misdemeanor of asking him to look it up.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Asheville

As to the assness of my suggestion that he look in Rule 20 where it informs the player of what to do when a dropped ball rolls OB, I plead guilty to the misdemeanor of asking him to look it up.

Judge Lewis hereby sentences you to a lifetime subscription to this thread and reading all of MeFree's posts herein, no less than once per day.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Judge Lewis hereby sentences you to a lifetime subscription to this thread and reading all of MeFree's posts herein, no less than once per day.

I object, on behalf of Asheville.  My grounds for the objection are the 8th amendment to the Constitution.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I object, on behalf of Asheville.  My grounds for the objection are the 8th amendment to the Constitution.

The 13th may apply if you consider lifetime thread subscription to be involuntary servitude.

[bplewis24]

I'm going to hold you all in contempt if you continue questioning my judgement.

[iacas]

So did anyone actually read either set and compare them to the existing Rules of Golf to highlight the main differences?

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by iacas

So did anyone actually read either set and compare them to the existing Rules of Golf to highlight the main differences?

Some of us have, Erik. Code 1 is a re-fruggle of the existing Rules structure. Code 2 is a radical proposal suggesting a change from stroke play to the Stableford format. Neither will fit on a bumper sticker.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

So did anyone actually read either set and compare them to the existing Rules of Golf to highlight the main differences?

I'll admit that I have not.  While I like some their basic thinking below, I don't think they did a very good job of highlighting the main differences (despite the fact they had a separate section set up for this).  Based on some of the comments in this thread, I do feel that a simplification of dropping procedures makes sense as several of TST rules officials have commented that despite being simple enough to understand, many players don't and this takes up quite a bit of time for rules officials to supervise/aid.

Some of the key points we discussed during this undertaking:

• Exceptions add complexity;
• Local Rules and conditions of competition add complexity and confusion;
• We should be more willing to accept the occasional terrible or great result if it would lead to a significantly simpler Rule that adequately addresses 99% of incidents; the Rules should not become bogged down to address the 1%;
• While not a primary aim of this project, any changes that would allow for a quicker pace of play would be welcomed;
• There are too many procedures for putting a ball into play (placing v. dropping; as near as possible v. with in one club-length v, within two club-lengths v. on a line);
• There are too many differences in the Rules for match play and stroke play; and
• There are too many differences in the treatment of different parts of the course.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

There are too many differences in the Rules for match play and stroke play; and

That's about the only one with which I really agree. Just apply the stroke penalties, and go from there. Then the only different rules are basically order of play and that you can concede shots, holes, or matches.

I could see making all water hazards the same. I could even see making drop lengths the same (though, really, it's two if you're penalized, one if it's free).

But that's about it. The thing with complexity of the rules (and I disagree with calling them complex) is that life is complex. We don't play on standardized fields, spectators and animals can interfere, etc. When's the last time a spectator tackled a football player or a squirrel ran onto a basketball court?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

When's the last time a spectator tackled a football player or a squirrel ran onto a basketball court?

Damn!  If only you had reversed those two ...

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by iacas

So did anyone actually read either set and compare them to the existing Rules of Golf to highlight the main differences?

I skimmed them both, but did not go into too much detail, but will when I have more time.  I don't really think the rules are too complex now. I've read them several times and also read a few illustrated books that had different diagrams, which made it easier.

Maybe having the same drops would be easier.  You and Rick convinced me previously on the OB rule and I agree that we should keep that.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by iacas

So did anyone actually read either set and compare them to the existing Rules of Golf to highlight the main differences?

They actually provide that on the site - in each Code's page there's a link to "Principal Changes".

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOnePrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoPrincipalChanges.html

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

They actually provide that on the site - in each Code's page there's a link to "Principal Changes".

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOnePrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoPrincipalChanges.html

I looked at that previously, but didn't really care for the way they formatted that in that it seemed like you still had to read through quite a bit to find out what is really different.

I completely agree with Erik that there is no reason not to simply apply stroke play penalties for match play situations as opposed to the separate penalty structure for match play.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I looked at that previously, but didn't really care for the way they formatted that in that it seemed like you still had to read through quite a bit to find out what is really different.

I completely agree with Erik that there is no reason not to simply apply stroke play penalties for match play situations as opposed to the separate penalty structure for match play.

Here we go again, not only are the Rules are too hard for me, even when they make a stab at some simplifications, I have to actually read them ... oh, the temerity of these despots.

You take the cake!