Let's Change a Bad Rule - Win = Honors

[iacas]

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Im not wanting "more perks".

Yes you are. The rules currently say you go first. You want the perk of choosing whether you go first or second.

Originally Posted by nleary9201

Just don't think it should be a detriment.

It's not a detriment. And even if it was, perhaps that's the intent - to put you at a virtually insignificant disadvantage to favor a close match (you did just win the hole).

Originally Posted by nleary9201

If you don't like to go first, you shouldn't have to.

And if you don't want to hole out your tap-in, you shouldn't have to, right? After all it's just a waste of time.

You want a perk that's not afforded to you. That's all this boils down to.

[turtleback]

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.

What you like or don't like to do is irrelevant.  Saying that the honor is something you "won" is like saying the shortest guy off the tee has "won" the right to be the first to hit his second shot.

Anyway, it is obvious that your idea is a complete non-starter.  On the list of the top ten potential rules changes that should be considered, this is like # 57.

[x129]

Why the heck would any coach bring this up with the umps before a game? They don't make the rule and letting your team know that you don't like their situation isn't exactly encouraging. I bet the team  also loves the fact that you think they fold under pressure. Did you also complain that you had to face the worst seed rather than getting to pick the one that you match up best against? I am guessing you will find that the higher seed wins a lot more often on a neutral field. There is a reason they are the highest seed.  I would actually be shocked if home field mattered in any sport below high school and even there I doubt it matters at most schools. In the pros things like living in a hotel, traveling 8 hours,.. and so on add up. Driving 30 mins across town doesn't do much. And I doubt your rowdy fans are really a factor...

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.

[Ignorant]

Pace of play is slow enough today without one more 'option' to be sorted out on the tee...

[In The Hole]

This is a bit of a windup right...... Order of play is just to prevent arguments so that everyone knows when there shot is to be played.

You have no reward, you didn't win anything, in golf you have 18 totally unrelated hole.

As for football, so if one team has an exceptionally good offence, they keep the ball all day, after every touchdown the elect to receive again. Makes no sense.

Have to say though, have never played under this rule, every game I have ever played including some better comps there always seems to be an agreement that you tee off when ready.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by In The Hole

This is a bit of a windup right...... Order of play is just to prevent arguments so that everyone knows when there shot is to be played.

You have no reward, you didn't win anything, in golf you have 18 totally unrelated hole.

As for football, so if one team has an exceptionally good offence, they keep the ball all day, after every touchdown the elect to receive again. Makes no sense.

Have to say though, have never played under this rule, every game I have ever played including some better comps there always seems to be an agreement that you tee off when ready.

It isn't an option in match play.  If you hit before the player who has the honor, he can recall your stroke and make you play again in the correct order.

In stroke play its more a matter of etiquette, with no consequences for playing out of turn.

[Ernest Jones]

We never play Honors because the "allmighty honorable one" is very likely to be dicking around with a head cover or air-counting his double bogey LOL. We also only play strokeplay and my personnel mindset is always that I am playing myself against the course, my playing partners are there and there will certainly be a little smacktalk after the round but during play I don't consider their actions to be relevant to my game. I would agree that in matchplay the rule should be observed and I would follow it under those circumstances but in strokeplay? Mother Effers are SLOW enough without waiting on Bob to find a tee and finish his cigarette.....

[zipazoid]

I reject the initial assertion that it's a 'bad rule.' It's not. It's a very clear method of determining order of play.

Now, the option of the winner of the previous hole on whether he wants to hit first? Interesting twist. May have some merit.

But nothings 'broken' here with the current rule, so I doubt if the governing bodies even entertain changing it.

[Bucki1968]

I think if we need to change any rule, it should be the stroke and distance rule on the out of bounds shot. I think it slows play down too much.

[Rulesman]

What wrong with using the rule that allows you to play a provisional. That's what it is there for. Or do you have problems keeping the ball on the playing field?

Good job you don't play tennis. No second bite there.

[boogielicious]

Jack Nicklaus thinks the out-of-bounds rule should be changed for the same reason.  I believe he said something along the lines, "why should you get a two stroke penalty just because the course doesn't own the property".  I always play a provisional, but there are still delays looking for the first ball.

[Fourputt]

I can't think of any game which doesn't have a designated field or playing area where such a limitation affects the play.  Golf is a game of holes played on a course.  A hole is a designated route within the course, and the course is confined to a specific area of land, even if there isn't any particular size or shape required for the layout.  Putting some sort of boundary on a hole or on the course is just simple logic - it defines the area where play is allowed.  Crossing that boundary puts your ball out of play - again simple logic.  Every game has different treatment of the boundaries of the playing area.  In tennis and baseball, the ball must hit to ground out of bounds to be out of play.  In football, the the play is over if either the player with the ball or the ball itself touch the ground out of bounds.  In soccer, the team loses possession if a player kicks the ball out of bounds.

Golf is actually more forgiving than those other games, as the ball must come to rest out of bounds in order to be out of play.  If the ball rolls through the out of bounds area and back onto the course, then it is still in play. The ball may be touching out of bounds and if even 1/16" of the ball is still in bounds, the ball is in play.  The player may stand out of bounds to play a ball which is in bounds.  That sounds eminently fair to me.

If I hit a ball toward a boundary line or fence, I play a provisional ball.  It's automatic, just as it should be for every player.  It only takes a few seconds after the rest of the group has hit to play a second ball.  Just because Jack Nicklaus thinks the rule is wrong doesn't make it so.  He is partly at fault for being the designer of so many golf residential developments with out of bounds bordering both sides of every hole.  Jack is still just a player, like the rest of us.   The best answer is to quit building those courses that wind through residential communities, or if you don't like it, quit playing that type of course.  There are plenty of the old style parkland courses around which only have out of bounds around the outer boundary of the course.  Or play a shorter tee when you're at a course with tight out of bounds so that you don't have to play driver on every hole.  You have other options than changing the rules, and that is exactly how the joint rules committee would approach the topic.

My home course has out of bounds in play on only 4 holes.  You never see anyone complaining that it's too penal there.  The course complex was built for golf, not for development.  There are no homes fronting on the course.   It's a good, fun golf course, which is why so many of the guys I play with have, like me, been playing it as their home course for 20 plus years.

[iacas]

OB rule isn't on topic for this thread, guys. :)

[boogielicious]

I like the honors approach.  It signals that you played best on the last hole and gives you a chance to get an advantage in stroke play.  I think nerves affect the second tee shot more.

[GaijinGolfer]

IMO, calling this rule, "bad" is a pretty narrow-minded way to look at it.  Theres plenty of other, much worse, "bad" rules that need fixing.  I do like the idea of the winner of the previous hole deciding who tees off first, especially if the next hole is a par-3 where the wind is a big factor.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

It's not only the wind on a par 3 determining which club to hit that factors in with this honors discussion. I actually agree with the OP that the winner of the previous hole should be able to choose if he hits first or last on the next hole. In match play, if you let your opponent hit first, you have a ton of more info in which to base your decision to hit on. Let's say you are on a tight par 4 with water/bunker/OB down either or both sides. If you choose (force) for your opponent to hit first, you can see how his tee-shot ends up. If he drives it in the water or OB, you can then decide to take a less agreesive swing with a fairway wood or long iron and play more conservatively knowing a par will more than likely win the hole. If he stripes one down the middle with his driver, then you know where you stand and can choose to be more aggressive in order to keep up. I don't buy the "guy hitting first has the advantage because he can put the pressure on the guy hitting second" theory. I'm not saying this may not factor in once in a while. But the vast majority of the time, in match play at least, the player who hits second almost always has the advantage by knowing what status or situation his opponent is in, before he has to decide on how to proceed. The advantage is to the 2nd hitter 95% of the time. Now, I agree that this rule may in fact be the way it is, in order to produce a more fair chance for the player behind. If you lost the previous hole, you get to watch how your opponent plays his tee-shot before you decide how to proceed. End note: this rule will never be changed.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MyrtleBeachGolf

It's not only the wind on a par 3 determining which club to hit that factors in with this honors discussion.

I actually agree with the OP that the winner of the previous hole should be able to choose if he hits first or last on the next hole.

The point the both of you seem to be missing is that it's not a "reward" for winning the previous hole. It's simply an easy way of deciding who hits first.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

The point the both of you seem to be missing is that it's not a "reward" for winning the previous hole. It's simply an easy way of deciding who hits first.

Oh I understand its not a "reward". If anything (as I suggested) it is a means to even out things by giving the player who lost the last hole the advantage on the next hole.