What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf?

[Bignose]

marpr, did you read the rest of the thread? I explained why you aren't supposed to ground your club in a sand trap. You gain information about how wet, and fluffly and firm and etc. the sand is. Being able to test the condition of the hazard pretty much makes it not a hazard anymore -- especially for the professionals. The reason it's supposed to be a hazard is that it is supposed to be harder to hit your ball where you want. The pros already get out of the sand too well, in my opinion, and you think they should be able to test the sand condition too? Why even have bunkers then?

[mikelz]

marpr, did you read the rest of the thread? I explained why you aren't supposed to ground your club in a sand trap. You gain information about how wet, and fluffly and firm and etc. the sand is. Being able to test the condition of the hazard pretty much makes it not a hazard anymore -- especially for the professionals. The reason it's supposed to be a hazard is that it is supposed to be harder to hit your ball where you want. The pros already get out of the sand too well, in my opinion, and you think they should be able to test the sand condition too? Why even have bunkers then?

Thank you for that breath of fresh air.

[Fourputt]

Why don't we just throw out the rules completely and everybody just do anything they want? Then if your buddy does something you don't like, you assess a penalty by whacking him over the head with your PW.

Most of complaints I see about the rules are made by those who don't know what they are talking about. They've never attended a rules seminar, never sat on the rules committee for their club, never made any attempt to actually understand why it is that way. They just don't like it and that's enough for them.

Suffice it to say that there are good, solid reasons for each rule and they have been time tested and most aren't going to change to any significant degree, so y'all better get used to it. Many of the so-called improvements that I see suggested here have been tried (or they are so absurd that a trial period isn't even necessary). Many changes through the years have failed when tested in real competition and were subsequently rescinded.

That isn't to say that there won't be more changes in the future. After all, we live in a world of change. But they won't be changed on a whim... only by a real, concrete need. Nothing I see talked about here fits that requirement.

[Guest]

Divot rule is dumb. where I play, divots cant be replaced as they explode, so we use sand. Should be treated as GUR as that is exactly what it is.

OOB should be like a lateral hazard. Not only to speed up play, but then less rules to learn and more consistancy.

Spike marks is dumb also, although less of an issue than in the steel spike days

Ball moving when grounded i can live with as you dont need to ground your club...the rules give you an out

[TourSpoon]

Why don't we just throw out the rules completely and everybody just do anything they want? Then if your buddy does something you don't like, you

I have to disagree with you. I think the fact that the PGA Tour has a local embedded ball rule that differs from the USGA fits the criteria for a rule that should be up for a healthy debate. So before absolutes are used you may want to read each post carefully.

[Fourputt]

I have to disagree with you. I think the fact that the PGA Tour has a local embedded ball rule that differs from the USGA fits the criteria for a rule that should be up for a healthy debate. So before absolutes are used you may want to read each post carefully.

I respectfully disagree with you AND the PGA Tour. One thing you learn when you actually STUDY the rules is that one of the most basic principles dictates that from the time you put the ball in play off the tee until you lift it from the hole, you don't touch it or do anything to otherwise cause it to move besides making a stroke. Most of the rules that do allow the player to touch the ball, only define very narrow parameters for such touching, for the purpose of minimizing the effect which that touching has on the game.

The USGA and the R & A have modified that principle in this case this just enough to give relief from an embedded ball where you should be entitled to a good lie, i.e. the closely mowed areas of the course. Outside of those areas you take your chances.... you aren't supposed to be assured of a good lie when you miss the fairway. The Tour has chosen to defy the authorities who regulate the amateur game, and in some respects that is just one way that tour tarnishes itself. It caters to a group of prima-donna golfers who have much too high an opinion of themselves. Just because something happens on the Tour, that doesn't make it right, or necessarily even reasonable for the average amateur player.

[mikelz]

I don't think there are any stupid rules in golf.
There used to be the "stymie". That was eliminated in 1952.

When the PGA deviates from the R&A; and USGA, I don't see the problem.
I think the PGA is entitled to as many local rules as any other golf club under USGA rules.
The PGA has to make money (the USGA already has more than they need).
The gallery and audience probably wouldn't be thrilled watching Stewart Cink or Frank Lickliter blast balls out of mud in 3 inches of rough.
It would look like one of their own shots from a good lie.
Really big numbers don't help the PGA's product marketing.
If I want to see people make 8s, I can just pick up my bag and play a round by myself.

I don't like the out of bounds rule but I think it's fair.
That tells me I ought to work on keeping it on the course.

[TourSpoon]

I respectfully disagree with you AND the PGA Tour. One thing you learn when you actually STUDY the rules is that one of the most basic principles dictates that from the time you put the ball in play off the tee until you lift it from the hole, you don't touch it or do anything to otherwise cause it to move besides making a stroke. Most of the rules that do allow the player to touch the ball, only define very narrow parameters for such touching, for the purpose of minimizing the effect which that touching has on the game.

Well, I know that your point in paragraph one is "play it as it lies" which is fundamental with the rules whether its USGA or R&A.; Your clarification holds water as a purist of the game. I can accept that. Thanks for elaborating.

[ScottySnapps]

agree about the divot in the fairway.

[Dent]

I'd have to say.. not being able to tee it up on the fairway? :P just kidding.. I don't like the rule about having to go back to the Tee box and taking a second drive if you lose your ball. That makes me so angry, there should be a different penalty, because this really slows down play.

[mikelz]

I'd have to say.. not being able to tee it up on the fairway? :P just kidding.. I don't like the rule about having to go back to the Tee box and taking a second drive if you lose your ball. That makes me so angry, there should be a different penalty, because this really slows down play.

Provisional balls don't cost you anything.

[lamebums]

Losing a ball warrants a penalty, I think - but OB is just plain wrong. I can mis entirely and be hitting 2 from the tee box, but if I make contact and it just goes sideways...I'm hitting 3?

Back in the old days it was just the distance penalty. We need to bring that back.

[Q.Q.Quillume]

Since I don't think ANY of the rules are stupid, there is no way for me to select the one I consider to be the MOST stupid.

[giantbear]

Why don't we just throw out the rules completely and everybody just do anything they want? Then if your buddy does something you don't like, you

Since you are such a student of the rules, perhaps you could step off your horse and explain to me then the reason for a separate rule for ob versus a lateral hazard? I understand the difference from the perspective of allowing a person to play the ball versus not allowing them to. With a lateral hazard, you are allowed to attempt to hit the ball whereas with ob, you are not. However, the reason for the difference in actual penalty escapes me. Most if not all ob markers are there to either protect the property beyond the ob, eg someone's backyard, or to protect the golfer, eg not allowing someone to play down a different fairway. However, the differing factor as to the penalty is not where the ball lands but how the course has decided to label the area.

In my opinion, the only difference between ob and a lateral hazard should be in whether you are afforded the ability to play the ball as it lies. If you are ob, you lose that ability and must drop with stroke penalty in accordance with the lateral hazard rule.

[Fourputt]

Since you are such a student of the rules, perhaps you could step off your horse and explain to me then the reason for a separate rule for ob versus a lateral hazard? I understand the difference from the perspective of allowing a person to play the ball versus not allowing them to. With a lateral hazard, you are allowed to attempt to hit the ball whereas with ob, you are not. However, the reason for the difference in actual penalty escapes me. Most if not all ob markers are there to either protect the property beyond the ob, eg someone's backyard, or to protect the golfer, eg not allowing someone to play down a different fairway. However, the differing factor as to the penalty is not where the ball lands but how the course has decided to label the area.

First the OB stakes, fences, etc. are there to define the boundaries of the golf course. What may or may not be on the other side of the boundary is irrelevant. And when you hit the ball there you have managed to hit such a bad shot that it is no longer on the golf course. There is no option to play it as it lies. The rules have no choice but to require you to play your next stroke from the last point where your ball was at rest on the course. That is the only point of reference on the course that can be used for determining relief in this situation. You can't use the line defining out of bounds as a reference point as the line itself is out of bounds. Nothing makes sense but to require a reload. The penalty is for the privilege of being allowed to take the ball in hand and put it back in play.

With a lateral water hazard... first your ball is still on the golf course (it may even be playable within the hazard), so you should derive a possible benefit from that. Second, there is a reference point on the course to use for taking relief (the line which defines the hazard). Again the penalty is for being allowed to to take the ball in hand and putting it back in play. Also by definition a water hazard of any kind, lateral or regular, must hold water at some time of the year. If not, the course management is already in violation for mismarking a feature of the course.

OB is just plain wrong. I can mis entirely and be hitting 2 from the tee box, but if I make contact and it just goes sideways...I'm hitting 3?

What "old days" are you talking about? This was tried in a rules change in 1964, and rescinded by 1968. I don't know anything about the discussion that led to the change or to the withdrawal of it, but one has to believe that it was found to be contrary to the principles of the game.

I will say that at the time of that experiment, the golf course residential developments were not as prolific as they are now, so OB was not as much a part of the game, (i.e. on both sides of every hole). This is one rule to keep an eye on to see if there is any move for a change in the future. As it stands, the rule is reasonable and logical within the idea and the spirit of the game. I can however understand the reasoning behind a push for a change. If not a change of the OB rule, then maybe the creation of a new "feature" definition for such courses, with its own procedure. Don't know if it is going to happen though.... we don't often see rules changes that only apply to certain venues.

[Hoovedawg]

I was playing in a HS tournament and was called for a 2 stroke penalty for hitting a leaf off of a tree in my practice swing. Not sure if this is a real rule or not, but if it is its retarded.

[Bignose]

I was playing in a HS tournament and was called for a 2 stroke penalty for hitting a leaf off of a tree in my practice swing. Not sure if this is a real rule or not, but if it is its retarded.

I am sounding more and more like FourPutt here... but if you'd research this rule just a little, you'd realize that it is there for a reason. You hit your ball under a tree and you have to take a restricted swing -- you have to accept that as part of your hitting it under a tree in the first place. In your practice swings, if you knock something off of a tree, like a branch or a leaf, you basically make your swing less restricted. Therefore, you are helping yourself more than you should be able to. That's why this rule is in place.

There is also that whole respect for nature thing, too. But, the main idea is that if you let someone hit a leaf off of a tree, then next it's "a clump of leaves" then next it's "a tiny branch" then next it's "just a little branch" then next it's "just that one branch there" and finally everyone is carrying a saw in their bags in case they are under a tree. The rules makers decided it was easiest and fairest just to say you can't hit anything off of a living tree during a practice swing, because it could help you improve your line or stance or or intended area of swing. Not so "retarded" once you know why it's there, is it?

[Fourputt]

I am sounding more and more like FourPutt here...

Hey!!! I resemble that remark....