or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you could change ONE rule, what would it be? - Page 18

post #307 of 398

Lateral hazards should include terrain that will preclude finding the ball, eve if it does not involve not water.

post #308 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJpatbee View Post
 

Lateral hazards should include terrain that will preclude finding the ball, eve if it does not involve not water.

 

Wrong.  A lateral water hazard must still fit the rules definition of a water hazard.  This is not a new complaint, and if there was any sympathy for this opinion, the rule would have long since been changed.

post #309 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Wrong.  A lateral water hazard must still fit the rules definition of a water hazard.  This is not a new complaint, and if there was any sympathy for this opinion, the rule would have long since been changed.

 

@Fourputt, you're gonna have to let some of these go. :) People want to change a rule - they don't want to have to tell you why the rule should actually be changed. :)

post #310 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

@Fourputt, you're gonna have to let some of these go. :) People want to change a rule - they don't want to have to tell you why the rule should actually be changed. :)

I don't know, I still find a little amusement in this exchange:

 

A:  "I want to change this rule!"

 

B:  "Why?"

 

A:  "Because I don't like it!"

 

B:  "Too bad, you can't change it."

 

A:  "Why?"

 

B:  "It's against the rules."

 

:doh:

post #311 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Wrong.  A lateral water hazard must still fit the rules definition of a water hazard.  This is not a new complaint, and if there was any sympathy for this opinion, the rule would have long since been changed.

 

@Fourputt, you're gonna have to let some of these go. :) People want to change a rule - they don't want to have to tell you why the rule should actually be changed. :)

 

Whatever you say boss.  That was as much a reply to his similar comment on another thread as to this one.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

@Fourputt, you're gonna have to let some of these go. :) People want to change a rule - they don't want to have to tell you why the rule should actually be changed. :)

I don't know, I still find a little amusement in this exchange:

 

A:  "I want to change this rule!"

 

B:  "Why?"

 

A:  "Because I don't like it!"

 

B:  "Too bad, you can't change it."

 

A:  "Why?"

 

B:  "It's against the rules."

 

:doh:

 

LOL  :beer:

post #312 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

That was as much a reply to his similar comment on another thread as to this one.

Ha!

 

I read your response (the old one) on the other thread, and then misinterpreted his comment on this thread, such that I thought you were contradicting yourself.  I thought on this thread he was simply saying that existing WH's should be expanded to include rough areas around them.  And then you said he was wrong, and I was like "wait a minute, you said that exact same thing on the other thread, even explained why the USGA recommends it" ... then realized he was the one who revived the other thread and on that thread he made it clear that he was saying something entirely different.

 

:-P

post #313 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Wrong.  A lateral water hazard must still fit the rules definition of a water hazard.  This is not a new complaint, and if there was any sympathy for this opinion, the rule would have long since been changed.

 

What I am proposing, and I know it would be difficult to define as was pointed out to me in another thread, is that there be a "lateral hazard" and not just a "lateral water hazard".  From my observations many golfers break the existing rule and treat the "hazard" like a water hazard and take a penalty stroke and a drop during non-tournament or non-$$ rounds.    I suspect the potential ambiguity of defining the non-water hazard has prevented the rule from being changed and not the lack of support.    In my opinion hitting a ball into a 30' heavily treed gorge right next to the fairway does not deserve a more severe penalty than hitting the ball into water.  I also believe that the origins of modern golf at ocean links courses where the only hazards were water and sand has had an impact on our current R&A and USGA rules.  So, if I could change a rule, that is the one I would change.

post #314 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJpatbee View Post
 

 

What I am proposing, and I know it would be difficult to define as was pointed out to me in another thread, is that there be a "lateral hazard" and not just a "lateral water hazard".  From my observations many golfers break the existing rule and treat the "hazard" like a water hazard and take a penalty stroke and a drop during non-tournament or non-$$ rounds.    I suspect the potential ambiguity of defining the non-water hazard has prevented the rule from being changed and not the lack of support.    In my opinion hitting a ball into a 30' heavily treed gorge right next to the fairway does not deserve a more severe penalty than hitting the ball into water.  I also believe that the origins of modern golf at ocean links courses where the only hazards were water and sand has had an impact on our current R&A and USGA rules.  So, if I could change a rule, that is the one I would change.

Just move here to Socal.  There are tons of courses around here (OK, maybe not "tons" but there are a couple ;)) that just make up their own rule, against the USGA guidelines, that follow your idea.  And like it was pointed out in the other (Myrtle Beach) thread, it's likely done to speed up play.  These same courses all have drop zones on holes that require forced carries and the DZ's are beyond the forced carry.

post #315 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJpatbee View Post
 

 

What I am proposing, and I know it would be difficult to define as was pointed out to me in another thread, is that there be a "lateral hazard" and not just a "lateral water hazard".  From my observations many golfers break the existing rule and treat the "hazard" like a water hazard and take a penalty stroke and a drop during non-tournament or non-$$ rounds.    I suspect the potential ambiguity of defining the non-water hazard has prevented the rule from being changed and not the lack of support.    In my opinion hitting a ball into a 30' heavily treed gorge right next to the fairway does not deserve a more severe penalty than hitting the ball into water.  I also believe that the origins of modern golf at ocean links courses where the only hazards were water and sand has had an impact on our current R&A and USGA rules.  So, if I could change a rule, that is the one I would change.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.....there are only two types of hazards on a golf course.  Water hazards (which includes the lateral variety) and bunkers.  What other "hazard" are you talking about here?  Other than the teeing ground and the putting green, everywhere else on the entire course is treated identically and is defined as "through-the-green". 

post #316 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.....there are only two types of hazards on a golf course.  Water hazards (which includes the lateral variety) and bunkers.  What other "hazard" are you talking about here?  Other than the teeing ground and the putting green, everywhere else on the entire course is treated identically and is defined as "through-the-green".

If he's talking about the same type of areas I'm talking about, it's just areas that are full of excessive bushes and brush and stuff.  No hazard, but hit it in there and it's gone.  The course by me (Talega) has for at least the last year or so, marked all of these areas as lateral hazards.  Many of them do not fit the definition of a water hazard either, I think.

post #317 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

If he's talking about the same type of areas I'm talking about, it's just areas that are full of excessive bushes and brush and stuff.  No hazard, but hit it in there and it's gone.  The course by me (Talega) has for at least the last year or so, marked all of these areas as lateral hazards.  Many of them do not fit the definition of a water hazard either, I think.

Now I'm confused. We have woods areas marked with red stakes signifying hazards. We take the same approach there as with a water hazard. If u land in woods without stakes and lose a ball, then it's stroke and distance.

Are you guys saying that your woods, bushes, gorges, etc., are NOT marked as hazards, ever?
post #318 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.....there are only two types of hazards on a golf course.  Water hazards (which includes the lateral variety) and bunkers.  What other "hazard" are you talking about here?  Other than the teeing ground and the putting green, everywhere else on the entire course is treated identically and is defined as "through-the-green".

You are correct under the current rules.  However, there are a number of types of terrain where if you hit your ball into it there is a very high probability that you will not find the ball, and if you do, it would be almost impossible to advance (a lot like water):  The steep wooded gorge that I mentioned above, inpenetrable (without a machete) wooded areas, and steep hills that are forested and brush covered that you would have to climb up to even begin to look for the ball.  You state that there are only two types of hazards on a golf course under today's rules, which I understand, and believe made sense at St. Andrew's and similar courses a couple of hundred years ago, but that style of course is the exception today.  I am proposing that there be only lateral hazards, whether they involve water or not.

post #319 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post


Now I'm confused. We have woods areas marked with red stakes signifying hazards. We take the same approach there as with a water hazard. If u land in woods without stakes and lose a ball, then it's stroke and distance.

Are you guys saying that your woods, bushes, gorges, etc., are NOT marked as hazards, ever?

Here in North Jersey I do not want to say "never" marked as hazards and speak for every course. But on the courses I have played, and there are many, these areas are not marked as hazards.  And to do so would be against the rules which is why I would like to see the rules updated.

post #320 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post


Now I'm confused. We have woods areas marked with red stakes signifying hazards. We take the same approach there as with a water hazard. If u land in woods without stakes and lose a ball, then it's stroke and distance.

Are you guys saying that your woods, bushes, gorges, etc., are NOT marked as hazards, ever?

They aren't supposed to be if they don't fit the definition of a water hazard.  However, some of the courses I play have areas that clearly are not water hazards but are marked as such anyway.

post #321 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJpatbee View Post

Here in North Jersey I do not want to say "never" marked as hazards and speak for every course. But on the courses I have played, and there are many, these areas are not marked as hazards.  And to do so would be against the rules which is why I would like to see the rules updated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

They aren't supposed to be if they don't fit the definition of a water hazard.  However, some of the courses I play have areas that clearly are not water hazards but are marked as such anyway.

Interesting. There are plenty of areas like this not marked as hazards on courses I play but I would guess most are. I never knew that was technically against the rules. Come to think of it, the club to which I belong but only play 5 or 6 times a year cuz it's 75 m away, is a pro-type course. Nicklaus-designed, beautiful and I've always been frustrated that their woods, etc., are not marked as hazards. Now I know why.
post #322 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post



Interesting. There are plenty of areas like this not marked as hazards on courses I play but I would guess most are. I never knew that was technically against the rules. Come to think of it, the club to which I belong but only play 5 or 6 times a year cuz it's 75 m away, is a pro-type course. Nicklaus-designed, beautiful and I've always been frustrated that their woods, etc., are not marked as hazards. Now I know why.

A “water hazard’’ is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course. All ground and water within the margin of a water hazardare part of the water hazard.

 

 

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q.The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and prickly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?

A.No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

post #323 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

A “water hazard’’ is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course. All ground and water within the margin of a water hazardare part of the water hazard.

 

 

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q.The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and prickly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?

A.No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

I understand that the situation is not abnormal and therefore a local rule should not apply.  But the answer, stating that there are many courses where a ball hit in certain areas is almost always lost or unplayable, makes a good case to me that the general rule should be changed.  If its a pond then OK, penalty and drop.  If its inpenetrable brush, stroke and distance  - seems like an inconsistency to me since the situation is the same, except one involves water and the other involves a different type of terrain.   As was stated in another post, the difficulty would be in describing what a "lateral non-water hazard" is and then enforcing it.

post #324 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJpatbee View Post
 

I understand that the situation is not abnormal and therefore a local rule should not apply.  But the answer, stating that there are many courses where a ball hit in certain areas is almost always lost or unplayable, makes a good case to me that the general rule should be changed.  If its a pond then OK, penalty and drop.  If its inpenetrable brush, stroke and distance  - seems like an inconsistency to me since the situation is the same, except one involves water and the other involves a different type of terrain.   As was stated in another post, the difficulty would be in describing what a "lateral non-water hazard" is and then enforcing it.

What is wrong with using rule 28 or 27-1a?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?