Dave's Journey With the Rules of Golf

[DaveP043]

33 minutes ago, p1n9183 said:

A bit old.. but this rule is kind of unfair ... 

Lets say that you have Emiliano Grillo and Darren Clark playing together on a PGA event and on one hole both hit the ball to the middle of the fairway only 1 inch apart. When they arrive to the ball Darren take his stand and water comes out from the ground and remains there so he procceds take a free drop on a dry area and hit his shot. 
Afterwards Grillo takes his stance in the same spot as Clark, but because he is a lot ligther, no water araise from the ground. According to the rules he is not allowed a free drop from the same spot darren had a free drop seconds before. I would love to see this happenning live on TV.

Can an argument be made by grillo? could and official use the "spirit of the rule" to let him have a free drop?  

  

How would you change the rule to make it more "fair", and still be consistently interpreted and enforced?  It may not be perfect, but as a referee I can watch a player and look at the ground surface and make a ruling.  How can it be changed to address different players and their individual height, weight, and shoe size?

[reidsou]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

It's a judgment call. They can't elaborate on every situation.

You can't just say it's an "easier" shot, and you can't even define "significantly easier" either. How much easier of a shot does it have to be before you get to "significantly"?

It's true that it is not always clear where to draw the line of "significant". But I would argue that saving half a stroke or more is definitely more than significant. According to the common meaning of "significant", which is all we have because the word is not defined elsewhere in the rules. 

This is irrespective of the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place. That penalty is only for when there was no significant advantage. 

And it is possible to tell to some certainty whether a stroke or half a stroke was saved by such tools as strokes-gained, experience of officials, etc. Applying the conditions listed in the definition of serious breach. 

In the example in which a player gave themselves free relief from a boundary object, if relief was necessary, then that wrong place gave a significant advantage. 

Though apparently there is some sort of verbal tradition that tournament officials have a higher standard of what they consider "significant". Much higher than one stroke. And they like to take into account that the player already received a two-stroke penalty, though that is not in the rules for determining what is a "significant advantage".  

[iacas]

5 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

Can an argument be made by grillo? could and official use the "spirit of the rule" to let him have a free drop?  

There's no such thing as the spirit of the rule.

And, you do realize how insanely small the time window and the level of water is for water to come up with one person standing there but not another person, right? It's basically never going to actually happen like that.

There are lots of rules like this: a 7' tall person's knee height drop is from higher up than a 4' tall junior's drop. Their driver is also longer, so they get a larger relief area. What are you gonna do?

Beyond that, my reply to you is the same as @DaveP043's: write a better one. This one is easy to understand and enforce.

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

But I would argue that saving half a stroke or more is definitely more than significant.

The penalty for playing from a wrong place is two strokes, so no, it's not significant. In that sense, the potential advantage must be > 2 strokes.

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

This is irrespective of the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place. That penalty is only for when there was no significant advantage.

No, it's not "irrespective of it." That's why the penalty exists. If it's significant, it's a DQ, which is the ultimate penalty.

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

And it is possible to tell to some certainty whether a stroke or half a stroke was saved by such tools as strokes-gained, experience of officials, etc. Applying the conditions listed in the definition of serious breach.

See above. They don't need to judge that.

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

In the example in which a player gave themselves free relief from a boundary object, if relief was necessary, then that wrong place gave a significant advantage.

No, he didn't. He could have taken one stroke to drop in the same place. This was already stated. Instead, he paid two.

1 hour ago, reidsou said:

Though apparently there is some sort of verbal tradition that tournament officials have a higher standard of what they consider "significant". Much higher than one stroke. And they like to take into account that the player already received a two-stroke penalty, though that is not in the rules for determining what is a "significant advantage".  

Of course they do.

[p1n9183]

On 7/24/2025 at 3:55 PM, DaveP043 said:

How can it be changed to address different players and their individual height, weight, and shoe size?

I'll keep the rule only if the water is visible above the surface either where the ball is placed or a normal stance would take place. If not, play ball. I took this the same as a divot, just bad luck. Adjust for a saggy/wet lie and hit the ball. (maybe put on your rain clothes before :D) 

[DaveP043]

On 7/24/2025 at 6:30 PM, reidsou said:

It's true that it is not always clear where to draw the line of "significant". But I would argue that saving half a stroke or more is definitely more than significant. According to the common meaning of "significant", which is all we have because the word is not defined elsewhere in the rules. 

This is irrespective of the two stroke penalty for playing from a wrong place. That penalty is only for when there was no significant advantage. 

And it is possible to tell to some certainty whether a stroke or half a stroke was saved by such tools as strokes-gained, experience of officials, etc. Applying the conditions listed in the definition of serious breach. 

In the example in which a player gave themselves free relief from a boundary object, if relief was necessary, then that wrong place gave a significant advantage. 

Though apparently there is some sort of verbal tradition that tournament officials have a higher standard of what they consider "significant". Much higher than one stroke. And they like to take into account that the player already received a two-stroke penalty, though that is not in the rules for determining what is a "significant advantage".  

This came up a few years ago in a Facebook page moderated by the USGA Rules people here:

USGA Rules of Golf Discussion | Question for the rules officials...

---

Question for the rules officials around here: when playing from the wrong place in stroke play, rule 14.7 describes how to proceed depending on whether there was a ‘serious breach’ or not. The...

At least when I pull it up, the USGA's response came up first.  I hope that helps.

[reidsou]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

This came up a few years ago in a Facebook page moderated by the USGA Rules people here:

USGA Rules of Golf Discussion | Question for the rules officials...

---

Question for the rules officials around here: when playing from the wrong place in stroke play, rule 14.7 describes how to proceed depending on...

At least when I pull it up, the USGA's response came up first.  I hope that helps.

Yes, thanks. I referenced this Facebook discussion in my post above.

I believe this Facebook post by "USGA" is completely wrong, based on my reading of the definition of serious breach and the commonly understood meaning of "significant advantage".  This phrase does not have a different meaning in golf, nor in the context of a two-stroke penalty. The two-stroke penalty is for playing from a wrong place that did NOT give a significant advantage. 

I sent a question to USGA Rules about the Facebook post and rule 14.7. Part of their answer was, "The common meaning of a word or phrase will prevail if it is not defined specifically in the Rules."  

The Facebook post includes this ridiculous (IMO) statement, "Because there are an infinite amount of possible infractions, it is not possible to have a definitive line of what is and is not a serious breach." and, "We realize many would like a "this is, this isn't" kind of list, but that's not how this Rule works as the Definition itself makes the Committee weigh a number of factors that are different in each situation in order to reach the conclusion." 

I.e. the meaning of "significant advantage" is so nebulous and subjective that we can't even give examples. Therefore each committee gets to make up its own definition. 

And then suggests that only more than two strokes would represent "significant advantage". Which is not the common meaning. 

It is not that complicated. 

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, reidsou said:

"We realize many would like a "this is, this isn't" kind of list, but that's not how this Rule works as the Definition itself makes the Committee weigh a number of factors that are different in each situation in order to reach the conclusion." 

We have four different factors to weight, each one is to be evaluated for its contribution to any advantage gained.  What do you want, an equation?  40% of this, 30% of that, add them up and if its over some number you call it a SB?  You're not going to get that, nor should you expect it.  For better or worse, you're stuck with the combined judgement of the Committee for that event.  An individual referee may make the decision to say it's not Serious, but a player will NOT get DQed for a serious breach until the entire group discusses it.  And if the Committee consists of a single club pro, I don't know for sure, but now bet a DQ would almost never be assessed.

[reidsou]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

We have four different factors to weight, each one is to be evaluated for its contribution to any advantage gained.  What do you want, an equation?  40% of this, 30% of that, add them up and if its over some number you call it a SB?  You're not going to get that, nor should you expect it.  For better or worse, you're stuck with the combined judgement of the Committee for that event.  An individual referee may make the decision to say it's not Serious, but a player will NOT get DQed for a serious breach until the entire group discusses it.  And if the Committee consists of a single club pro, I don't know for sure, but now bet a DQ would almost never be assessed.

Any golfer can apply the four factors and tell whether there was a "significant advantage" or not. (It doesn't have to be all four.) For example, it is a significant advantage to play from the fairway instead of the rough.     

I think this argument that the definition is some kind of mystery, and DQ's are rare, is an oral tradition rather than a literal reading of the rules. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, reidsou said:

For example, it is a significant advantage to play from the fairway instead of the rough.

Unless I'm grossly misreading something, or you're not saying what you mean to be saying… I can't be more clear about this: no, it isn't. There are zero trained rules officials who would say something like that.

We're given some examples in rules classes. For example: A hits her ball into a yellow penalty area. Because the ball hit the far bank and rolled back in, she mistakenly drops on the green side of the PA and plays out the hole when she should have dropped behind the PA and still had to play over it successfully. That's significant enough to warrant a DQ if it's not corrected.

3 hours ago, reidsou said:

Any golfer can apply the four factors and tell whether there was a "significant advantage" or not.

No, they can't.

You're not getting it right here and you're way more knowledgeable than the average golfer.

3 hours ago, reidsou said:

I think this argument that the definition is some kind of mystery, and DQ's are rare, is an oral tradition rather than a literal reading of the rules. 

I don't agree.

The text of that post from the USGA is (my additional quick comments are in black):

You've hit the nail on the head that there is some subjectivity inherent to the definition of serious breach: the Committee must make a judgment on whether the player has gained a significant advantage which means different Committees might Rule differently in similar circumstances. Because there are an infinite amount of possible infractions, it is not possible to have a definitive line of what is and is not a serious breach. 

None of the following are 100% binding but are examples of general thoughts/examples from various Rules experts that lead in the right direction:

- Is two strokes enough? If you told the player he could play from the wrong place but he'd have to take two penalty strokes and he'd rather do that than play from the right place - you've got a serious breach.

(Almost nobody would take two strokes to play from the fairway instead of the rough. Heck, if they could drop back in the fairway with one stroke under the Unplayable rule, that would be a better option. Fairway vs. rough with all else being roughly the same is almost never going to be a serious breach.)

-A few years back (so old Rules but similar process), JB Holmes was determined to have committed a serious breach of playing from a wrong place when he played from FARTHER away than he was supposed to because the new position allowed him to reach a par-5 green with his next stroke where the correct location required a punch out.

Talked about that one earlier.

-Most officials would think it would have to be a very specific set of circumstances to get to a serious breach on the putting green if the right place is also on the putting green.

-Historically playing from outside a bunker when you were supposed to play from inside the bunker was a serious breach (if significantly better than stroke and distance would've been), but that's not guaranteed and given the available option to get out of a bunker now would again need to be a specific set of circumstances.

Overall, a serious breach needs to be something so significant that the Committee feels it cannot accept the player's score when played from that position - even with a two-stroke penalty. We realize many would like a "this is, this isn't" kind of list, but that's not how this Rule works as the Definition itself makes the Committee weigh a number of factors that are different in each situation in order to reach the conclusion.

[reidsou]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

... There are zero trained rules officials who would say something like that.

We're given some examples in rules classes. ...

The text of that post from the USGA is (my additional quick comments are in black): ...

 

Erik and Dave, 

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer this. As always, appreciate your many posts and insights. 

Though the term is not defined in the rules of golf, apparently rules officials are taught that "significant advantage" has a rules-specific definition different than the common meaning of that term. 

That has not been my understanding of how the rules work, but will go forward with this new information.     

Thanks,

Reid 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, reidsou said:

Though the term is not defined in the rules of golf, apparently rules officials are taught that "significant advantage" has a rules-specific definition different than the common meaning of that term. 

No, where the Rules of Golf do not provide a definition, the common definition is used. The definition of "serious breach" is given, but the definition of "significant" or "serious" are not, because there'd be no logical way to actually do this. It's a judgment call.

A ball in the fairway versus the rough is not a significant breach, and a player would not choose to be in the fairway over the rough for a two-stroke penalty. You're on a lonely island with that one.

[DaveP043]

8 hours ago, reidsou said:

Though the term is not defined in the rules of golf, apparently rules officials are taught that "significant advantage" has a rules-specific definition different than the common meaning of that term

Serios Breach is a defined term in the rules.  Clearly you're not satisfied with the definition, but that's life.  

[reidsou]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Serios Breach is a defined term in the rules.  Clearly you're not satisfied with the definition, but that's life.  

The undefined term is "significant advantage". The common meaning of which is much less than two strokes.  

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, reidsou said:

The undefined term is "significant advantage". The common meaning of which is much less than two strokes.  

No, it's not. It is an advantage to hit from the fairway than the rough (for most!), but it is not a significant advantage.

[saevel25]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, it's not. It is an advantage to hit from the fairway than the rough (for most!), but it is not a significant advantage.

To add some stats to this. 

200 yards out, fairway expected strokes is 3.19, from the rough it is 3.42. Not even close to a full two strokes difference. Not even really half a stroke. 

Bunker versus Fairway, same distance, 3.19 compared to 3.55. Even a fairway bunker isn't even a full stroke. Though, you throw them into a pot bunker where you have to hit out sideways. Then it's a full stroke penalty, still not two strokes. 

I could see a situation where you take an incorrect drop, get a look at the green, go on and make birdie. If you have to drop in the correct spot, it might be unplayable. Sometimes the drop is a drop into an unplayable position. A bushed lined cart path is an example of that. Its either drop or attempt a punch out, maybe that means hitting it 30 yards backwards to a point where you can't reach the green in two. The strokes can add up fast to where significant advantage is there. 

[Rulesman]

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

To add some stats to this. 

200 yards out, fairway expected strokes is 3.19, from the rough it is 3.42. Not even close to a full two strokes difference. Not even really half a stroke. 

Bunker versus Fairway, same distance, 3.19 compared to 3.55.

Where did you get this stuff? What standard of player does it relate to? Scratch, bogey, elderly ....?

I may cost some players 2, 3 or 4 strokes.

[saevel25]

11 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Where did you get this stuff? What standard of player does it relate to? Scratch, bogey, elderly ....?

I may cost some players 2, 3 or 4 strokes.

There are stats for at least the PGA Tour players on rough versus fairway. Given they play thicker rough than us amateurs, so under majority of situations, your typical public course the rough isn't that penal versus the fairway. In some instances, it could be a benefit if the fairway is burnt out, and the rough tees the ball up a bit. 

I totally understand and should have been more specific. Rough at Oakmont is not the rough at a normal country club. 

Even then, if a golfer can advance it out of the rough, let's say half the distance than the fairway, it's not adding up strokes like you think it might. Nearly all golf courses do not have rough so terrible it will cost you close to 2 stroke penalty. 

[Rulesman]

14 hours ago, saevel25 said:

 Nearly all golf courses do not have rough so terrible it will cost you close to 2 stroke penalty. 

Have you ever played woodland courses in the UK?