or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Weighty proposal for rewrite of the Rules
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Weighty proposal for rewrite of the Rules

post #1 of 91
Thread Starter 

http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

post #2 of 91

Gonna take some time to go through it, but should make for some interesting reading, and lively conversation!

post #3 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

 

I have read most of it and don't find it compelling, especially Code Two. Enticing the population to play Stableford? Furthermore, they didn't adopt my pet idea, so they're automatically all wet! However, the authors are certainly more qualified than most to have some fresh ideas.

post #4 of 91

Neither Code One nor Code Two appear to terribly short.

 

I'm not opposed at all to simplifying the rules. But this is the kind of effort it would likely take - not some sort of haphazard "the rules are too complex!" cries with massive changes to the way the game is played fundamentally.

 

I agree that all drops could be either one or two clublengths (I like two). I don't agree that if you hit the ball OB you should get to drop by where it went out (and that doesn't even begin to make sense for a lost ball).

post #5 of 91

I'll read it after that MeFree guy reads it and reacts.

post #6 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

I'll read it after that MeFree guy reads it and reacts.

 

Where's the guy with the popcorn when you need him?  

 

post #7 of 91

A single water hazard Rule has merit.

Relief from all wildlife-made holes actually has a chance, too.

Placing everything instead of dropping could work.

 

Let's do away with lines on golf balls.

And do away with a penalty for striking the flagstick from on the putting green.

 

I'm not done yet, but my wine glass has mysteriously become empty and the Red Sox will be on in a few minutes. a2_wink.gif

post #8 of 91
Some of them strike me as different more than simplified.....
post #9 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Some of them strike me as different more than simplified.....

 

I'm sure that you noticed that both authors were USGA Rules Committee members. You can bet that they've heard it all!

post #10 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bplewis24 View Post

I'll read it after that MeFree guy reads it and reacts.

I will when I get the chance...neck issues are limiting my screen time currently

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post

A single water hazard Rule has merit.

Relief from all wildlife-made holes actually has a chance, too.

Placing everything instead of dropping could work.

 

Let's do away with lines on golf balls.

And do away with a penalty for striking the flagstick from on the putting green.

 

I'm not done yet, but my wine glass has mysteriously become empty and the Red Sox will be on in a few minutes. a2_wink.gif

I was just thinking that there is really not that much reason to have two types of WH- if you think about it, with most "direct" water hazards, you are going to be dropping behind where you entered UNLESS you rolled into the hazard from the side or backwards (or in the case of a hole like TPC #17, touched the green first).  In my mind, most of these shots are not as bad as shots where you directly land in the water, so why not give the benefit of the LWH 2 club lengths drop option in all cases.

 

I think placing instead of dropping makes complete sense whenever you are assessed a penalty- why should you take a drop from an unplayable only to see it roll back exactly where you took relief from and still be assessed a stroke.  OR taking a drop in a WH drop zone and seeing the ball roll into a divot- the penalty stroke is enough in these situations.  I have more issue with situations like taking relief from a sprinkler in the rough and then placing the ball on the fairway.  Guys on tour seem to find a way to drop so that they end having to place after a re-drop a high % of the time, so why not just allow placing, but maybe limit it to similar type of lie/grass in free relief situations like sprinkler heads and cart paths. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Some of them strike me as different more than simplified.....

I have argued that something has to change in order to simplify, but that I am OK with this as long as the basic game remains the same- most of the skill/scoring differences in golf come from how you swing the club/strike the ball, not the difference between where you drop it or the type of WH you land in.

post #11 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post

A single water hazard Rule has merit.

Relief from all wildlife-made holes actually has a chance, too.

Placing everything instead of dropping could work.

 

Let's do away with lines on golf balls.

And do away with a penalty for striking the flagstick from on the putting green.

 

I'm not done yet, but my wine glass has mysteriously become empty and the Red Sox will be on in a few minutes. a2_wink.gif

Sounds about right.

post #12 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

 

I think placing instead of dropping makes complete sense whenever you are assessed a penalty- why should you take a drop from an unplayable only to see it roll back exactly where you took relief from and still be assessed a stroke.  OR taking a drop in a WH drop zone and seeing the ball roll into a divot- the penalty stroke is enough in these situations.  I have more issue with situations like taking relief from a sprinkler in the rough and then placing the ball on the fairway.  Guys on tour seem to find a way to drop so that they end having to place after a re-drop a high % of the time, so why not just allow placing, but maybe limit it to similar type of lie/grass in free relief situations like sprinkler heads and cart paths. 

I have argued that something has to change in order to simplify, but that I am OK with this as long as the basic game remains the same- most of the skill/scoring differences in golf come from how you swing the club/strike the ball, not the difference between where you drop it or the type of WH you land in.

 

Why should you be guaranteed a good lie when you have incurred a penalty?  The quality of your lie, including the possibility of ending in a divot is always present in a struck shot, why should you be insulated from that possibility because you did something bad?  A lot of the skill/scoring differences in golf come from the type of lie you end up with. 

post #13 of 91
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

Why should you be guaranteed a good lie when you have incurred a penalty?  The quality of your lie, including the possibility of ending in a divot is always present in a struck shot, why should you be insulated from that possibility because you did something bad?  A lot of the skill/scoring differences in golf come from the type of lie you end up with. 

Whilst not necessarily agreeing with them, their reasoning is entirely about rules simplification. This would be one of the biggest contributors to this objective.

 

As a referee, most of my interaction with players on the course is explaining or confirming the drop options or procedure. It also seems to the biggest problem are for club players.

post #14 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post

 

Why should you be guaranteed a good lie when you have incurred a penalty?  The quality of your lie, including the possibility of ending in a divot is always present in a struck shot, why should you be insulated from that possibility because you did something bad?  A lot of the skill/scoring differences in golf come from the type of lie you end up with. 

Whilst not necessarily agreeing with them, their reasoning is entirely about rules simplification. This would be one of the biggest contributors to this objective.

 

As a referee, most of my interaction with players on the course is explaining or confirming the drop options or procedure. It also seems to the biggest problem are for club players.

 

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.

post #15 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.

 

Judging from our shared experiences, perhaps "dropping" is complex. 1) How to drop isn't too difficult. 2) Where to drop (and in the proposal, where to place) is difficult for all except the most skilled or experienced competitors. 3) When to re-drop is also poorly understood and the always place option will help.

 

The more I think about it, the rewrite's "place instead of drop" notion might well be a tough sell to the RBs simply because of the horror of a player getting a better lie out of the process. You can see it ... the 1CL and 2CL placings will almost always result in a "teed up" lie. Maybe, place for 1CL and drop for 2CL has merit ... or perhaps it adds another layer of complexity.

post #16 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.

I don't mind seeing the option of dropping on the opposite margin of a lateral hazard go away. That's probably one of the least understood/utilized options available anyway.....
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.

 

Judging from our shared experiences, perhaps "dropping" is complex. 1) How to drop isn't too difficult. 2) Where to drop (and in the proposal, where to place) is difficult for all except the most skilled or experienced competitors. 3) When to re-drop is also poorly understood and the always place option will help.

 

The more I think about it, the rewrite's "place instead of drop" notion might well be a tough sell to the RBs simply because of the horror of a player getting a better lie out of the process. You can see it ... the 1CL and 2CL placings will almost always result in a "teed up" lie. Maybe, place for 1CL and drop for 2CL has merit ... or perhaps it adds another layer of complexity.

 

It's only difficult for people who have never bothered to try and learn the rule.  I could take just about anyone out on the course and in 15 minutes take them through every basic scenario for taking relief under rules 24 (obstructions), 25 (abnormal ground), 26 (water hazards), and 28 (ball unplayable), and covering the actual dropping procedures under rule 20.  There is really only one dropping procedure and two methods for measuring one's dropping zone by using clublengths.  You just have to remember that for relief without penalty your reference point is the nearest point of relief from where the ball lies, and for relief with penalty your reference point is where the ball lies (Rule 28) or where the ball crossed the margin of the hazard (Rule 26).  For relief without penalty the measured area from the NPR is always one clublength, and for penalty relief, the measured area from the ball or from the margin of the hazard is always 2 clublengths.

 

(I'm not discussing the stroke and distance option because that is self explanatory).

post #18 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.
I was pretty young then, but I remember when you used to have to drop it backwards over your shoulder.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Weighty proposal for rewrite of the Rules