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 19

post #325 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

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

 

I agree: don't hit your ball into the impenetrable brush.

post #326 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I agree: don't hit your ball into the impenetrable brush.

Of course, and I should not hit the ball into water either.  I just believe the resulting situations are the same, but the penalty is more severe based on whether the ball is in water or not.  I did review the rules mentioned above and for the ball that is "gone" based on the terrain the resulting penalty is still stroke and distance.  I understand and abide by the rule (or I would not be objecting to it) and do not expect it to be changed.  But for myself, as a point of interest, since I have playing golf, I always wondered why hitting the ball into a pond is less penalizing than hitting the ball down a steep gorge.  The best explanation I have heard so far is that a "lateral non-water hazard" would be too difficult to define, whereas water is water.  Perhaps, and it does not detract from my enjoyment of the game - sure I have had a couple of strokes added to my score on occasion, but so have most you.  I just find it odd in a sport where the R&A and USGA rules are constantly analyzed and reviewed by people more knowledgable in them than me, that the inconsistency in the lateral water hazard rule verus a  lateral non-water hazard has not been addressed.

 

Or is it the fact that the rule is the same for all of us that makes it consistent?  Have a nice weekend and get out and play!

post #327 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyna View Post

Golf appears to have a number of rules which are archaic & need to be either eliminated or toned down. The one that got Sergio DQ'd is obviously one of them. Everyone knows what his actual score was, signing his card with the mistake that Boo wrote down wouldn't change his score.

I'm not a Sergio fan by any means but that is a stupid & ridiculous reason to be tossed out of a tournament.

agree!!! the "old" rules of golf...actually almost all the rules have to be rewritten. all sports rewrite the rules to better the game as players and equipment change. football, baseball, and hockey all had major rule changes to better the game...WAKE UP usga/r&a

post #328 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

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."

 

" src="http://files.thesandtrap.com//images/smilies/new/d2_doh.gif">

 



You don't know how close I came to making a comment almost identical to yours.

In fact the wording was so close that I did a double-take when looking down through the thread because I thought maybe I had submitted the comment after all.

This thread reminds me of a professor I had one time that started many of his test questions with "In your opinion..." (for some reason) and then proceeded to mark my opinions wrong. a2_wink.gif
post #329 of 398

Spike marks.  If you aren't wearing nails, you can tap 'em down.  If you are, it's assumed that you caused them, so you may not....until play of the hole is over.

post #330 of 398
So after hitting a tee shot into a divot for the second time in one round I got to thinking about how I've always thought divots should be classified as GUR. I know not everyone will agree, and that's what this thread is about!

If you could alter, tweak, change, modify, or totally eliminate a rule in golf what would it be and why?

For me, my rule change is a belief that a divot is an abnormal ground condition, however I am aware that opening this up for interpretation leaves things like footprints in the bunker, and spike marks in a very grey area. Let us know what you would change!
post #331 of 398
post #332 of 398

I think one of the most frustrating situations for me is when I hit a really good drive (for me) and it's probably a couple feet off the fairway or the green and I can't find it because the rough is so thick.

 

This happened twice in a recent 9 hole round where the course was playing at a pretty brisk pace.  Didn't have much time to look.  Found a few balls a few feet off the fairway though they weren't mine.

 

Can't change the rules though, it would be too open to interpretation, abuse and cheating.

post #333 of 398

Bunker rules...... some of them just don't make any sense. There are two sets of rules. One for us, and one for televised events.

 

Then there is the crap B.S. that can happen on Sundays..... :cry: when you hit the ball into a bunker and some #@!!%!! didn't bother to rake the bunker after he left a 1-1/2" deep crater in the wet sand (?) and your ball of course rolls in and settles in the deepest part.

 

Had this been a PGA tournament, someone would have raked the bunker before you hit your shot, and consequently a touring pro would never deal with that on the course. Us peons however must either fail on our first attempt, only to watch haplessly as our ball rolls back into the crater, now a 1/2" deeper on its way to China and take an unplayable lie and drop elsewhere in the bunker with a one stroke penalty which we should have done in the first place.

 

The same goes for a fallen tree branch from a storm that the grounds crew hasn't gotten around to clearing yet from a bunker. That also would not be a problem if one fell from a tree during a televised round on Saturday or Sunday since the crew would promptly remove it. We however cannot remove it without taking a two stroke penalty or loss of hole. However we can take an unplayable lie costing us one stroke if we drop into the bunker. We can, however remove it after we've hit our shot out of the bunker so the next poor person doesn't have to deal with it.

 

Also while banana peels and other litter like aluminum cans can be removed from a bunker if they obstruct the line of play because they are no part of the "natural terrain," half eaten apples and pears dropped by slobs in the foursome in front of you cannot because they are considered part of nature even though there is no apple or pear tree in the area!

 

Fortunately some of our courses have a local rule allowing stones and rocks next to your ball to be removed from sand bunkers. It's a safety issue + who wants to damage a $125 wedge? Also given that the bunker is X number of square feet what are the odds that your ball will end up right next to the rock? about 80%. PS: the rock would not be in the bunker for the televised event.... just saying.

 

I know.... "don't hit the ball into a bunker."

post #334 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrvFrShow View Post


Bunker rules...... There are two sets of rules. One for us, and one for televised events.

By what different set of "bunker rules" do the pros play under?
post #335 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


By what different set of "bunker rules" do the pros play under?

 

Smart ass. :-P

 

Do you ever see branches and crap like stones and rocks in a sand bunker on television? No.

post #336 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrvFrShow View Post

Smart ass. b2_tongue.gif

Do you ever see branches and crap like stones and rocks in a sand bunker on television? No.


Sounds to me like you have more of a problem with the condition of the course(s) you play, not with the rules themselves. If that's the case, I'd absolutely find somewhere else to play.
post #337 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrvFrShow View Post
 

 

Fortunately some of our courses have a local rule allowing stones and rocks next to your ball to be removed from sand bunkers. It's a safety issue + who wants to damage a $125 wedge? Also given that the bunker is X number of square feet what are the odds that your ball will end up right next to the rock? about 80%. PS: the rock would not be in the bunker for the televised event.... just saying.

 

I know.... "don't hit the ball into a bunker."

That Local Rule was in force at the Open Championship at Royal Liverpool. Most links courses have natural sand which contains a proportion of the naturally occurring stones and pebbles. The Local Rule is on the Hard Card for all R&A competitions. The Open is only played on links courses.

 

The LR is not on the PGA hard card so they don't get relief.

post #338 of 398

As I live in a small town in Tx, our courses are not big budget courses.  Thus we make allowances in our local rules.  Our game is two dollar/two down press.  Can improve your lie in the fairway one club length.  In the rough, one gets free relief from rocks.  No need to damage a club.  As long as everyone plays by the same rules, the game is equitable.  What is unique to golf is that it is really impossible to cheat because you will know that you are a cheat.  Everyone you play with will know you're a cheat.  Golf is a game of personal honor at all levels.  

 

I would say that the rules have not addressed the new clubs and balls.  This is where we may see new rules in the future.

post #339 of 398

Why do the rules need to address the new clubs and balls? The new clubs and balls have made the game more fun. Fun is the direction the game needs to head if it is going to have any chance of growing. It is already difficult even with the new clubs and balls. If they change rules to counter the new club and ball technology to make the game more difficult again it becomes less fun, and you'll chase people away from the game. That would be a bad business decision. Golf courses are struggling already due to declining interest. And Ricky Fowler and Lexi Thompson both need to win majors to help stir interest.

post #340 of 398

Just to clarify, I think that the new balls and equipment have certainly benefitted amateurs.  The hybrids have eliminated the long irons which really makes players competitive as they age.  I just wonder when technology will render some courses obsolete for the touring pro.  

post #341 of 398

I would allow for range finders on all professional tours.

post #342 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lastpick View Post
 

As I live in a small town in Tx, our courses are not big budget courses.  Thus we make allowances in our local rules.  Our game is two dollar/two down press.  Can improve your lie in the fairway one club length.  In the rough, one gets free relief from rocks.  No need to damage a club.  As long as everyone plays by the same rules, the game is equitable.  What is unique to golf is that it is really impossible to cheat because you will know that you are a cheat.

 

Everyone you play with will know you're a cheat.  Golf is a game of personal honor at all levels.  

 

 

That is fine except it means that your handicap is not valid.  And it is very possible to cheat in golf.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrvFrShow View Post
 

Why do the rules need to address the new clubs and balls? The new clubs and balls have made the game more fun. Fun is the direction the game needs to head if it is going to have any chance of growing. It is already difficult even with the new clubs and balls. If they change rules to counter the new club and ball technology to make the game more difficult again it becomes less fun, and you'll chase people away from the game. That would be a bad business decision. Golf courses are struggling already due to declining interest. And Ricky Fowler and Lexi Thompson both need to win majors to help stir interest.

 

The game is what it is  Where did the notion come from that difficult means not fun?  Why should people who like the game the way it is have to have their game screwed with to satisfy people who may someday play, or make up new "easy" rules for the people who never followed the rules in the first place?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lastpick View Post
 

I would allow for range finders on all professional tours.

 

How would that change anything?

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?