Let's Change a Bad Rule - Win = Honors

[nleary9201]

I'm still trying to figure out why the "honors" rule hasn't been changed. I think it just doesn't make sense.

1. The Rule as I know it. - Correct me if im wrong, but I think you are "required" to hit first after you won the last hole.

2. Why its a Bad Rule -- I think the previous hole winner should have the "option" to hit in any position he wants. The "option" is

a much stronger position.  This is especially true in match play.

3. Example When the Rule Can be Especially Negative.   - You are in match play and you have been hitting the ball about the same distance as your opponent. You have noticed you hit mostly the same club in a given situation. Then you come to

a nasty par 3 with a "two club wind". Hmmmmmm , wonder what club I should hit here??? Wouldn't it be better to have the "option"

to let your opponent hit first.  If he pulls a hybrid out and hits it 20 yds. over the green, you might want to hit 5 iron. And so on!

4. Bad Arguments I hear Supporting the Rule.  " I wanna hit first a put pressure on my opponent."  This isn't a very good argument because the percentages of amature players hitting shots that put pressure on opponents isn't very good. Most of us hit more bad or mediocre shots than shot that will make our opponent cringe in fear.

5. Support from Other Sports in Similar Situations.  1. College Football Overtime.  Ever watch an NCAA football game going into overtime?  The team that wins the coin toss chooses to play defense 99% of the time.  Why?  The want to see what their opponent does with their turn.  If they don't score, they only need to kick a field goal to win.  If the do score they know what they have to do and can play accordingly.    2. Golf Long Drive Competitions -- My son competes in some long drive events. A coin flip decides who has the "OPTION" of what order to hit in.  Again, 99% of the time, the "coin flip winner" goes last.  If the first contestant doesn't get any drives in the grid, contestant 2 can pull a 3 wood and just hit one in the grid. Again a position of much more power, having the "OPTION" of when you hit.

[Fourputt]

And if he hits a 5 iron stiff but doesn't let you see, then how has that helped you.  Or if he swings it a little harder or softer than usual, unless you really know his swing, you'd never know.  While the idea may have merit in some few cases, the idea of honor on the tee is too steeped in tradition to be considered for change.  I doubt that anyone can actually state just when that became a part of the game. It's one of those things that is lost in the mists of the past.  I doubt that the joint rules committee would ever be able to find a reason to open a discussion for such a change.

To be honest, honor on the tee isn't really given as a reward, it is just an arbitrary procedure for determining who plays first.  During the play of the hole, the player who is away always plays first, but on the tee, neither player is away, so another method of determining the order of play had to be devised.  In match play there is never an option as to who plays first.  The only time I've heard of this being altered is if the player who is away agrees to let the other player play first for a specific reason such as pace of play.

This Decision may help you.  It's the only one I can find dealing with an alteration of the fixed order of play in a match.  It is only valid on the tee, and would be a breach if it was determined that it was done so that the player might gain an advantage by means other than his play.

Quote:

10-1a/3

Players Agree Not to Tee Off in Prescribed Order to Save Time

Q. In match play, A wins the 4th hole. On his way to the 5th tee, he returns to retrieve a club left at the 4th green and suggests that his opponent B play first to save time, which B does. In view of Rule 10-1a , have the players agreed to waive the Rules in breach of Rule 1-3 ?

A. No. When starting play of a hole, a player who has the honor may invite his opponent to play first to save time, but if the opponent does so, the player has waived his right under Rule 10-1c to recall the stroke played out of turn. The opponent is under no obligation to accept the offer to tee off first. (Revised - Formerly 1-3/1 )

[x129]

I don't want to wait on every hole for someone to decide if they want to go first or second for something that just doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I'm still trying to figure out why the "honors" rule hasn't been changed. I think it just doesn't make sense.

1. The Rule as I know it. - Correct me if im wrong, but I think you are "required" to hit first after you won the last hole.

2. Why its a Bad Rule -- I think the previous hole winner should have the "option" to hit in any position he wants. The "option" is

a much stronger position.  This is especially true in match play.

3. Example When the Rule Can be Especially Negative.   - You are in match play and you have been hitting the ball about the same distance as your opponent. You have noticed you hit mostly the same club in a given situation. Then you come to

a nasty par 3 with a "two club wind". Hmmmmmm , wonder what club I should hit here??? Wouldn't it be better to have the "option"

to let your opponent hit first.  If he pulls a hybrid out and hits it 20 yds. over the green, you might want to hit 5 iron. And so on!

4. Bad Arguments I hear Supporting the Rule.  " I wanna hit first a put pressure on my opponent."  This isn't a very good argument because the percentages of amature players hitting shots that put pressure on opponents isn't very good. Most of us hit more bad or mediocre shots than shot that will make our opponent cringe in fear.

5. Support from Other Sports in Similar Situations.  1. College Football Overtime.  Ever watch an NCAA football game going into overtime?  The team that wins the coin toss chooses to play defense 99% of the time.  Why?  The want to see what their opponent does with their turn.  If they don't score, they only need to kick a field goal to win.  If the do score they know what they have to do and can play accordingly.    2. Golf Long Drive Competitions -- My son competes in some long drive events. A coin flip decides who has the "OPTION" of what order to hit in.  Again, 99% of the time, the "coin flip winner" goes last.  If the first contestant doesn't get any drives in the grid, contestant 2 can pull a 3 wood and just hit one in the grid. Again a position of much more power, having the "OPTION" of when you hit.

[newtogolf]

I never really thought about it but your argument makes sense given the limited time I've had to think about it.  Having the option to hit first or last is a much stronger position than being required to hit first.  I can see some potential issues with it;

1. Additional time for a player to decide what the best strategy is, discussions with caddie, etc.
2. Not sure that it is in line with the "gentleman"  game ideal as there's a high potential for gamesmanship which could cause confrontational situations.  I could see someone with honors stepping up to the ball as they were about to hit and at the last minute deciding to force his opponent to hit first when he's not ready.

[tristanhilton85]

Good points by the OP but I think FourPutt nailed it on the head... honors on the tee isn't given as a reward so much as they needed to figure out who should go first and went with that.

[David in FL]

In order for a rule to be "bad", there needs to be something inherently wrong with it. As a method of determining order of play from the tee, I just don't see anything inherently wrong with giving the "honor" based on whoever most recently won a prior hole.

[Jhwarren]

I agree with David. There is nothing "unfair" about the rule, so I do not think it warrants a change.

You do bring up some good points about being in a position of strength. If you look at it from the other way, perhaps the rule was intended to give a very slight edge to the golfer who has just lost a hole. Similar to how the team with the worst record in NFL gets the first pick in next year's draft. Just a thought...

[nleary9201]

I guess my point about the "OPTION" is getting lost. Why isn't having the option better than an abitrary "you must hit first" rule.  I personally hate to hit first for all the reasons I stated before. I shouldn't be made to hit first if I don't want to.  I should be able to earn the option by winning the previous hole.  Also the "what if he his it stiff or swings a little harder of softer argument doesn't get to the root of it.  I've been on holes at new courses many many times when the stated yardage is either way off or visually deceiving.  I would much rather the previous hole loser hit first.  You can get some info from his club selection even if you aren't exactly sure i.e. driver vs. hybrid, 3 iron vs 7 iron and so on.  I don't get the point about slower play being a factor.  The previous hole winner decides if he goes first or not. The rest of the players would play in the normal order.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I guess my point about the "OPTION" is getting lost. Why isn't having the option better than an abitrary "you must hit first" rule.  I personally hate to hit first for all the reasons I stated before. I shouldn't be made to hit first if I don't want to.  I should be able to earn the option by winning the previous hole.  Also the "what if he his it stiff or swings a little harder of softer argument doesn't get to the root of it.  I've been on holes at new courses many many times when the stated yardage is either way off or visually deceiving.  I would much rather the previous hole loser hit first.  You can get some info from his club selection even if you aren't exactly sure i.e. driver vs. hybrid, 3 iron vs 7 iron and so on.  I don't get the point about slower play being a factor.  The previous hole winner decides if he goes first or not. The rest of the players would play in the normal order.

Because hitting first ISN'T supposed to be a reward for anything, it's just the rule.  You have earned a hole won, that's all.  Hell, you just won the hole, why should you get anything more out of it?  Now it's your turn to hit first on the tee because that's how it's done, and for no other reason.

You are supposed to win a hole or a match by how you play your ball.  You are trying to turn it into gamesmanship instead of golf, and that's bush league at best.  It's admitting that you aren't good enough to beat him at golf, so you need some other sort of edge.  That isn't how the game is intended to be played.

[nleary9201]

You're screen name say you are a major winner. If you have been in that kind of competition you know that using every legal advantage isn't "gamesmanship" its just playing smart. Is watching your opponents putt roll on a similar line as yours "gamesmanship"?  I don't know why the "option" isn't better than the "you must hit first" honor.  The "honor" should be the option. That would be a better honor for all players. Those that like to hit first can. Those that like to hit last can.

[x129]

If you are worried about the yardage, laser it. If your in a tournament that doesn't allow them, you will have played a practice round 99% of the time before hand. Distance is a total nonissue these days. It isn't 1950 anymore.  Between lasers, gps, and course books, if you don't know the yardage it is a choice you have made.

Personally I don't want to see Bones and Phil talk for 5 min at some tournament about if they want to hit first or let the other guy. I also don't want to see the angle shots (I know some people love them) that will result. And the arguments about if you gave me the right to tee off or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nleary9201

I guess my point about the "OPTION" is getting lost. Why isn't having the option better than an abitrary "you must hit first" rule.  I personally hate to hit first for all the reasons I stated before. I shouldn't be made to hit first if I don't want to.  I should be able to earn the option by winning the previous hole.  Also the "what if he his it stiff or swings a little harder of softer argument doesn't get to the root of it.  I've been on holes at new courses many many times when the stated yardage is either way off or visually deceiving.  I would much rather the previous hole loser hit first.  You can get some info from his club selection even if you aren't exactly sure i.e. driver vs. hybrid, 3 iron vs 7 iron and so on.  I don't get the point about slower play being a factor.  The previous hole winner decides if he goes first or not. The rest of the players would play in the normal order.

[nleary9201]

What the heck are "angle shots"?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

You're screen name say you are a major winner.

That's his user title. :P  http://thesandtrap.com/t/11/member-status-user-titles/#post_115

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Is watching your opponents putt roll on a similar line as yours "gamesmanship"?  I don't know why the "option" isn't better than the "you must hit first" honor.  The "honor" should be the option. That would be a better honor for all players. Those that like to hit first can. Those that like to hit last can.

Not sure what to tell you. Fourputt already said it. The "perks" of having won the hole are that you won the hole.

That's it. Then the rules specify that you must tee off first on the next hole. That's it. You're not given any more "perks."

You're arguing for more "perks." Why should you get more perks? You can't answer that, or haven't yet.

It's not a bad rule, and I do not agree with you that it needs to be changed.

[nleary9201]

Im not wanting "more perks". Just don't think it should be a detriment. If you don't like to go first, you shouldn't have to. Again, a coin flip winner in any other sport has the "option"--i. e. to kick off or receive. I also take issue with another bad rule I ran into in a softball tourney, (similar situation, YOU GUYS WILL LOVE THIS ONE!)  My daughters team was seeded higher in their bracket. We go out for the pre -game talk with the umpires and they tell us we are the home team (only because of a higher seeding.) So of course I say " No we would like to be the away team, shouldn't we have the option of being home or away because of our higher seeding. Our team had a much better record when being the away team. The umps were at a loss.  Nobody had ever brought it up. They agreed in principal but couldn't change the rule on the spot, which I understood.  Conventional wisdom isn't always best.  Some things that are traditional aren't always correct.  Back to the softball argument, I would like to see some stats on being a home or away team on a NEUTRAL field.  I think there is way more pressure being behind and having your last at bat, the do or die situation.  You both get the same number of at bats, but the pressure of the bottom on the "7th" in girls softball can be overwhelming to some teams.  The option, the option, the option, is all I want.

[Rulesman]

I isn't a 'bad' rule. It's just one you don't like.

But they tried it for 100 years and changed it. It's worked fine for nearly 200 years. If it's not broken don't fixit.

[14ledo81]

I don't want to wait on every hole for someone to decide if they want to go first or second for something that just doesn't matter.

"Doesn't matter" is arguable. It obviously matters to the OP or he would not have started a thread.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Im not wanting "more perks". Just don't think it should be a detriment. If you don't like to go first, you shouldn't have to. Again, a coin flip winner in any other sport has the "option"--i. e. to kick off or receive. I also take issue with another bad rule I ran into in a softball tourney, (similar situation, YOU GUYS WILL LOVE THIS ONE!)  My daughters team was seeded higher in their bracket. We go out for the pre -game talk with the umpires and they tell us we are the home team (only because of a higher seeding.) So of course I say " No we would like to be the away team, shouldn't we have the option of being home or away because of our higher seeding. Our team had a much better record when being the away team. The umps were at a loss.  Nobody had ever brought it up. They agreed in principal but couldn't change the rule on the spot, which I understood.  Conventional wisdom isn't always best.  Some things that are traditional aren't always correct.  Back to the softball argument, I would like to see some stats on being a home or away team on a NEUTRAL field.  I think there is way more pressure being behind and having your last at bat, the do or die situation.  You both get the same number of at bats, but the pressure of the bottom on the "7th" in girls softball can be overwhelming to some teams.  The option, the option, the option, is all I want.

If you don't like going first, then don't win any holes.  That's simple.  You probably won't like that very much either, but there it is.  Having the honor when you win a hole isn't a detriment, it's a rule, plain and simple.  If you don't like it, then don't play match play.  I can't make it any clearer, so I'm out of here like a tumbleweed.

[Golfingdad]

I think in football after I have scored a touchdown I earned the right to decide whether or not I have to kick off to the other team. Sometimes i think I'd rather keep the ball. Same thing in basketball ... I'd like the option to take it out of bounds after I've scored. Why does the other team always get it? I'm the one who scored, I earned that choice.