or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf? - Page 14

post #235 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore Left View Post

 

I absolutely never wear shorts on the course.   I prefer pants for one,  and also I think I'd look silly wearing my golf-shoes in shorts.   Either way,  I always wear a shirt with a collar too....  even if I go to a driving range.   Respect the game I say....


Oh no, not this $#%@ again.

post #236 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtCheap View Post

 
They make golf sandals and even golf crocs for that very reason.


Ugh, ive been looking for golf sandals in a 14 1/2 forever now. Nobody makes them. Shoes are easy. Footjoy, Nike, and Puma all make shoes that fit me.

post #237 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApocG10 View Post


Ugh, ive been looking for golf sandals in a 14 1/2 forever now. Nobody makes them. Shoes are easy. Footjoy, Nike, and Puma all make shoes that fit me.

 I feel your pain. I wear a size 10 4E. (Think Fred Flintstone) I did good to find a pair of regular golf shoes.  

post #238 of 361

I found this out the hard way yesterday... apparently its a stroke penalty if your club touches the sand before you swing in the bunker? Gotta be the dumbest rule ever... unless someone can explain why that rule might be considered necessary...

post #239 of 361

       Quote:

Originally Posted by divot dave View Post

I found this out the hard way yesterday... apparently its a stroke penalty if your club touches the sand before you swing in the bunker? Gotta be the dumbest rule ever... unless someone can explain why that rule might be considered necessary...


The reason why that is not allowed is because that gives the player an opportunity to test the conditions of the sand before they hit their shot.  It's the same reason why you can't take practice swings that touch the sand in a bunker, because you're giving yourself an idea of how the ball may react out of the sand. (How soft the sand is, etc.) Plus if you could touch the sand with your club, you could craft yourself a tee out of sand! Which honestly... sounds pretty cool now that I think about it. d3_drool.gif

 

The rule I hate the most is having to hit out of a divot.  If all courses were over-seeded properly then I wouldn't have a problem, but playing out of most divots is like playing out of a crator. f4_glare.gif

post #240 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelz View Post

 
Provisional balls don't cost you anything.

Untrue. They cost me a $1.50 for each one that follows the original out of bounds.

 

Amazing how you can blast the provisional down the middle and then find the first one in a really nasty spot.

post #241 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtCheap View Post

 
They make golf sandals and even golf crocs for that very reason.

 

I would have to make a local rule...lol. 

post #242 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 
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.

 
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.

 

I do believe that modern courses and specifically the residential type do warrant a new look at OB and the penalties associated with it.

 

At my home course there is one hole with out of bounds down the right side due to a runway and around 260ish yards a lateral hazard runs through the course and out of bounds. From the tee box the hazard is partially visible though any ball entering it isn't visible for long so it is possible for a ball to enter the hazard and then come to rest OB or in the hazard but neither will be easily visible or even findable. It is really hard to determine some times where the ball crossed either the hazard or the OB. The difference in the penalty is huge. From the hazard the drop will leave you a shot and not a particularly hard one and the OB well it leaves a the walk back and it is all up to where you "think" the ball went out. I wish on that hole that the penalty was similar for both and it would remove a lot worries about where the ball ended up. Not being able to hit a provisional for a ball thought to be in a hazard comes into play as well on this hole.

post #243 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bignose View Post

I understand the frustration of finding the ball laying in a divot, but it is a question of drawing a solid clear-cut line. When does a divot stop being a divot? This is a really tough question. Obviously a fresh divot is going to be really ugly & ragged. But, after the grass grows a day or two, it gets softer around the edges. Is that still a divot? How about a weak later when a few shoots start coming up? Is that still a divot? How about 3 weeks later when the grass has grown over it, but there is still a depression? Is that still a divot? Where is the line drawn.

The rule makers have basically said that you can't just leave that to the player's judgment... that they think too many people would take advantage of calling any uneven lie or minute depression an old divot and then improving their lie. And I understand that one.

I don't understand the spike mark on the green rule. This is a line drawn at a really odd point -- like was mentioned earlier, you can fix any old ball mark or old hole location or sweep most debris off the green, but fixing a spike mark is a big no-no.

I do understand not having a divot rule, I don't understand the spike mark rule. Does someone know what the reason the spike mark rule is in the books? I am very curious why the line was drawn at spike marks.

 

 

Personally, they can make the rule clear, 'If the ball comes to a stop in the middle of the correct fairway (i.e. not the fairway of the 7th hole when you are playing #8) and the ball is NOT laying on grass that's planted in the ground, the player should be able to drop the ball 1 club length, no closer to the hole.'

post #244 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeGolfer View Post

       Quote:


The reason why that is not allowed is because that gives the player an opportunity to test the conditions of the sand before they hit their shot.  It's the same reason why you can't take practice swings that touch the sand in a bunker, because you're giving yourself an idea of how the ball may react out of the sand. (How soft the sand is, etc.) Plus if you could touch the sand with your club, you could craft yourself a tee out of sand! Which honestly... sounds pretty cool now that I think about it. d3_drool.gif

 

The rule I hate the most is having to hit out of a divot.  If all courses were over-seeded properly then I wouldn't have a problem, but playing out of most divots is like playing out of a crator. f4_glare.gif

 

Well, I was thinking that might be the reason, but... why would that matter...? On the fairway, I am testing the conditions of the surface when I touch the club to the ground and when i take practice swings. Same thing on the green... I can get down on all fours and feel the grass, see which way the blades are laying... etc

why should it be any different for the bunker? What is so special about the bunker that it is forbidden to test the condition of its surface with the club? My only other thought would be to add insult to injury in a sense. Perhaps the purpose of the rule is to intensify the mistake of landing in a bunker in the first place???? thoughts???

post #245 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by divot dave View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeGolfer View Post

       Quote:


The reason why that is not allowed is because that gives the player an opportunity to test the conditions of the sand before they hit their shot.  It's the same reason why you can't take practice swings that touch the sand in a bunker, because you're giving yourself an idea of how the ball may react out of the sand. (How soft the sand is, etc.) Plus if you could touch the sand with your club, you could craft yourself a tee out of sand! Which honestly... sounds pretty cool now that I think about it. d3_drool.gif

 

The rule I hate the most is having to hit out of a divot.  If all courses were over-seeded properly then I wouldn't have a problem, but playing out of most divots is like playing out of a crator. f4_glare.gif

 

Well, I was thinking that might be the reason, but... why would that matter...? On the fairway, I am testing the conditions of the surface when I touch the club to the ground and when i take practice swings. Same thing on the green... I can get down on all fours and feel the grass, see which way the blades are laying... etc

why should it be any different for the bunker? What is so special about the bunker that it is forbidden to test the condition of its surface with the club? My only other thought would be to add insult to injury in a sense. Perhaps the purpose of the rule is to intensify the mistake of landing in a bunker in the first place???? thoughts???

 

It's simply that your club is sliding through much more of the bunker before hitting the ball than it does on other shots, plus the consistency and hardness of sand is much more variable than grass/ground. And yes, it does make sense that not allowing you to test the bunker (or hazard) condition is a penalty for being there in the first place.

post #246 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

 

It's simply that your club is sliding through much more of the bunker before hitting the ball than it does on other shots, plus the consistency and hardness of sand is much more variable than grass/ground. And yes, it does make sense that not allowing you to test the bunker (or hazard) condition is a penalty for being there in the first place.

 

I suppose I can live with that explanation... but I still think its a crummy rule. In my situation, I simply let the club head touch the sand before starting my swing... and boom... 1 stroke penalty. No sand moved, (well barely)... 

 

now there's yet another thing i need to practice... just as i thought i was getting the feel for bunker play too...  I gotta learn how to swing accurately from a starting point that is actually higher than where the ball rests. d2_doh.gif

post #247 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore Left View Post

 

I absolutely never wear shorts on the course.   I prefer pants for one,  and also I think I'd look silly wearing my golf-shoes in shorts.   Either way,  I always wear a shirt with a collar too....  even if I go to a driving range.   Respect the game I say....

Well, golly, gee!  Collared shirts?  Is them like collard greens?  I likes 'em wit butter and grits tha way mah granmammy makes um, yesirree!

 

Respect the game?  Well, hell, Dale Earnhardt, Sr. was a  VARY respectableful man, so ivry time Ah wear my black Dale Sr. wifebeater out to the golf course, I's bein' verry respectin', not to mention Lickin'-It-All-Up-Ladies! smokin' hot in the eyes of them beer cart girls. Shee-it, Ah might even tuck mah shirt into mah cutoffs, Ah's that respectfulable. Yessirree!

 

---------

 

I don't like stereotyping.  I was discriminated against in my youth by dull-witted bigots because of stereotypes and I have made it my personal policy not ever to give weight to stereotypes, even against fans of country music; I have an exception to this rule for criminals.  However, I think I am going to make a second exception to my rule and state that anyone who refuses to play golf in shorts because of "respect for the game" is not just a silly elitist, but is a person with his head stuck so far up his rectum that he can see what he just swallowed.  I think there is simply no way that a guy under age 55 who follows his own personal no-shorts rule because of fawning adherence to some sort of old-fashioned "traditional values" (and not because of a medical reason such as skin sensitivity or a shocking scar) is anything other than insufferably pompous.   

 

Respect for the game!?!?  Did you never see Caddyshack?  Apparently not. 

 

If anyone knows Fore Left, I'll give you $10 if you can sneak into his foresome one weekend, wearing lycra cycling shorts.  I'll give you another $5 if you spill Gatorade all over the crotch of his pants or sing some AC/DC and stand in his line of sight, playing air guitar during his backswing.

 

PS:  If you have golf shoes that look silly wearing them with shorts, very likely they look just as silly with your pants, too.

post #248 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Well, golly, gee!  Collared shirts?  Is them like collard greens?  I likes 'em wit butter and grits tha way mah granmammy makes um, yesirree!

 

Respect the game?  Well, hell, Dale Earnhardt, Sr. was a  VARY respectableful man, so ivry time Ah wear my black Dale Sr. wifebeater out to the golf course, I's bein' verry respectin', not to mention Lickin'-It-All-Up-Ladies! smokin' hot in the eyes of them beer cart girls. Shee-it, Ah might even tuck mah shirt into mah cutoffs, Ah's that respectfulable. Yessirree!

 

---------

 

I don't like stereotyping.  I was discriminated against in my youth by dull-witted bigots because of stereotypes and I have made it my personal policy not ever to give weight to stereotypes, even against fans of country music; I have an exception to this rule for criminals.  However, I think I am going to make a second exception to my rule and state that anyone who refuses to play golf in shorts because of "respect for the game" is not just a silly elitist, but is a person with his head stuck so far up his rectum that he can see what he just swallowed.  I think there is simply no way that a guy under age 55 who follows his own personal no-shorts rule because of fawning adherence to some sort of old-fashioned "traditional values" (and not because of a medical reason such as skin sensitivity or a shocking scar) is anything other than insufferably pompous.   

 

Respect for the game!?!?  Did you never see Caddyshack?  Apparently not. 

 

If anyone knows Fore Left, I'll give you $10 if you can sneak into his foresome one weekend, wearing lycra cycling shorts.  I'll give you another $5 if you spill Gatorade all over the crotch of his pants or sing some AC/DC and stand in his line of sight, playing air guitar during his backswing.

 

PS:  If you have golf shoes that look silly wearing them with shorts, very likely they look just as silly with your pants, too.

 

 

Who was stereotyping?   I was just stating what I do....  You can wear whatever you like,  I just prefer to wear pants.

 

Caddyshack is great by the way.

post #249 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Well, golly, gee!  Collared shirts?  Is them like collard greens?  I likes 'em wit butter and grits tha way mah granmammy makes um, yesirree!

 

Respect the game?  Well, hell, Dale Earnhardt, Sr. was a  VARY respectableful man, so ivry time Ah wear my black Dale Sr. wifebeater out to the golf course, I's bein' verry respectin', not to mention Lickin'-It-All-Up-Ladies! smokin' hot in the eyes of them beer cart girls. Shee-it, Ah might even tuck mah shirt into mah cutoffs, Ah's that respectfulable. Yessirree!

 

---------

 

I don't like stereotyping.  I was discriminated against in my youth by dull-witted bigots because of stereotypes and I have made it my personal policy not ever to give weight to stereotypes, even against fans of country music; I have an exception to this rule for criminals.  However, I think I am going to make a second exception to my rule and state that anyone who refuses to play golf in shorts because of "respect for the game" is not just a silly elitist, but is a person with his head stuck so far up his rectum that he can see what he just swallowed.  I think there is simply no way that a guy under age 55 who follows his own personal no-shorts rule because of fawning adherence to some sort of old-fashioned "traditional values" (and not because of a medical reason such as skin sensitivity or a shocking scar) is anything other than insufferably pompous.   

 

Respect for the game!?!?  Did you never see Caddyshack?  Apparently not. 

 

If anyone knows Fore Left, I'll give you $10 if you can sneak into his foresome one weekend, wearing lycra cycling shorts.  I'll give you another $5 if you spill Gatorade all over the crotch of his pants or sing some AC/DC and stand in his line of sight, playing air guitar during his backswing.

 

PS:  If you have golf shoes that look silly wearing them with shorts, very likely they look just as silly with your pants, too.

Leave Earnhardt out of this.

post #250 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore Left View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

Here's one that bugs me, although it's not an universal rule of golf, but it is a rule of the men's professional tours:  the no-shorts dress code rule.

 

 

I absolutely never wear shorts on the course.   I prefer pants for one,  and also I think I'd look silly wearing my golf-shoes in shorts.   Either way,  I always wear a shirt with a collar too....  even if I go to a driving range.   Respect the game I say....

 

Which ones don't respect the game - shorts or shirts without collars?

post #251 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean_miller View Post

 

Which ones don't respect the game - shorts or shirts without collars?


Shirts without collars.....

 

I honestly think if Tiger Woods wasn't playing like he was playing, ranked how he was ranked,  etc...  the tour would have never let anyone else get away with his 'mock-collar' shirts he always wears.

post #252 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fore Left View Post


Shirts without collars.....

 

I honestly think if Tiger Woods wasn't playing like he was playing, ranked how he was ranked,  etc...  the tour would have never let anyone else get away with his 'mock-collar' shirts he always wears.

He hasn't worn them for years.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf?