Weighty proposal for rewrite of the Rules

[David in FL]

If Rule 22 didn't exist in its present form there'd be very few occasions, apart from retrieving it from the hole, in which it would be necessary to ever touch your ball on the putting green. And really, 16-1b is unnecessary if not for the fact that not cleaning is virtually unenforceable.

But why pick that to change? Change just for the sake of change doesn't accomplish anything....

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by David in FL

But why pick that to change? Change just for the sake of change doesn't accomplish anything....

Actually, I've picked a couple of things, but this one would take the game back closer to where the Leithmen envisioned it. While that's not much of a reason, the fact that a player generally cannot clean his ball through the green suggests that the accrued "privilege" of cleaning the ball on the putting green has little to recommend it.

Just think, everyone would be treated alike ... plus no more fussing around lining up the line ad infinitum. Yes, they'd still stalk that 12" putt and survey it from all angles whilst calling in the caddie for his learned opinion followed by six practice strokes before the millionaire, to the delight of Gary McCord, buries it!

[bplewis24]

I don't understand why the arbitrary limit of 1 lift/clean/mark per green.  Why not just do away with it altogether?  If I have a 40 foot lag putt for birdie (or eagle) and I leave it 12 feet short or knock it 12 feet past, I want to line it up again.

Besides, folks who incidentally stymie their playing partner then benefit from being able to mark again.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by turtleback

So you want to guarantee a perfect placed lie because of a one out of, what?  hundred, chance that the ball will roll back to its original place?  When even the possibility of that happening should cause the player to use one of the the other relief options?  Because frankly, if that happens more than once in a thousand times it means the player is exercising pretty poor judgment in his choice of relief options.  There is a reason that pros look very carefully at where they are going to drop a ball.  And carefully consider what relief option they will take or even if they WILL take relief.

But to a lot of players the notion that they should consider what their next shot will be is not something they think about, whether in their shot selection or their relief options.  How many players would have automatically pulled out driver to measure the club-length if in the situation Tiger was in on 18 on Friday?  But Tiger thought about where his ball might end up and chose to measure his club-length with a putter, so if his drop put him in the treeline he would get to redrop.  I don't see the point in taking such strategic thinking out of the game through the Rules.

I have no confidence that any "simplification: of the rules is going to improve compliance or improve pace of play.  Too many people either don't bother to learn even the simple rules or disregard them when convenient, for me to think that the Rules should cater to the lowest common denominator.  Why change the rules because people want to whack the ball around with little interest in the rules?  They didn't read the current rules and they aren't going to read any new set of rules.  And they aren't going to follow either set.

Rolling back into its original place is only one possibility- you could take an unplayable and have it roll into another unplayable or you could take relief from a hazard in a designated drop area and have it roll into a divot.

I like the strategic element of golf, but don't think this needs to extend to dropping the golf ball.  You can't tell me that it speeds up play when players carefully consider their relief options, look very carefully at where they are going to drop a ball, call over a rules official, drop once, re-drop and then end up placing it with a finger from the rules official designating the spot the second drop landed.  Yes, allowing a player to place the ball obviates much of this thinking, but to me that is a good thing.

For those that say the rules are simple to learn and the only reason golfers don't know them is that they just don't care, I ask this-  How many times have you seen a TV announcer and/or Professional Golfer miss state or miss play a rule?  You are not going to convince me that they just don't give a sh*t about the rules or that players like Tiger or Annika are idiots.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I don't understand why the arbitrary limit of 1 lift/clean/mark per green.  Why not just do away with it altogether?  If I have a 40 foot lag putt for birdie (or eagle) and I leave it 12 feet short or knock it 12 feet past, I want to line it up again.

Besides, folks who incidentally stymie their playing partner then benefit from being able to mark again.

Lining up is another unnecessary and time wasting touching of the ball in play. Old Tom Morris would be horrified if he knew the liberties taken by today's players.

Rule 22 remains as is ... no one who lived through the stymie era wishes to see that come back.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by Asheville

Actually, I've picked a couple of things, but this one would take the game back closer to where the Leithmen envisioned it. While that's not much of a reason, the fact that a player generally cannot clean his ball through the green suggests that the accrued "privilege" of cleaning the ball on the putting green has little to recommend it.

Just think, everyone would be treated alike ... plus no more fussing around lining up the line ad infinitum. Yes, they'd still stalk that 12" putt and survey it from all angles whilst calling in the caddie for his learned opinion followed by six practice strokes before the millionaire, to the delight of Gary McCord, buries it!

The player can clean his ball anytime through the green.....anytime he's allowed to lift it.  Just as on the green.

Do you really believe that there's no need to have the option to clean a chunk of mud off the ball prior to putting if you so choose?  I find that hard to believe.  And if the ball can be marked once, there's no harm in allowing it multiple times......other than change simply for the sake of change, and I'm sorry, I never support that.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by David in FL

The player can clean his ball anytime through the green.....anytime he's allowed to lift it.  Just as on the green.

Do you really believe that there's no need to have the option to clean a chunk of mud off the ball prior to putting if you so choose?  I find that hard to believe.  And if the ball can be marked once, there's no harm in allowing it multiple times......other than change simply for the sake of change, and I'm sorry, I never support that.

As you know there are several times when, through the green, a player may lift his ball but not clean it, but never mind.

If a player cannot clean a dirty ball just because it's dirty through the green, why should the Rules suddenly allow an unnecessary touching of the ball on the putting green?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Rolling back into its original place is only one possibility- you could take an unplayable and have it roll into another unplayable or you could take relief from a hazard in a designated drop area and have it roll into a divot.

Then they shouldn't drop there.

That's about as simple as it gets.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Asheville

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

The player can clean his ball anytime through the green.....anytime he's allowed to lift it.  Just as on the green.

Do you really believe that there's no need to have the option to clean a chunk of mud off the ball prior to putting if you so choose?  I find that hard to believe.  And if the ball can be marked once, there's no harm in allowing it multiple times......other than change simply for the sake of change, and I'm sorry, I never support that.

As you know there are several times when, through the green, a player may lift his ball but not clean it, but never mind.

If a player cannot clean a dirty ball just because it's dirty through the green, why should the Rules suddenly allow an unnecessary touching of the ball on the putting green?

Totally different case.  A muddy ball rolling on a surface which runs 11+ on the stimp is going to be far more negatively impacted than one hit with a 95mph clubhead speed in the fairway (which will mostly knock off anything adhering to the ball).  Not that the second case won't be affected, but the degree will be less.  And I would oppose the elimination of the optional preferred lies local rule for particularly sloppy days.  I just don't care for the overly liberal application of that rule by the PGA Tour.  The Tour coddles its members too much, certainly far more than my men's club did with us.  There should be certain criteria which must be met in before activating any local rule.

I still don't find anything wrong with the rules as they currently are.  Contrary to popular opinion, they do not promote slow play.  If that was so, then they wouldn't be playing 3½ hour rounds in Scotland.  The on course procedures for playing the game are not that complex.  I feel that most of the fear of the rules is perpetrated and perpetuated by players who have never actually made any effort to understand them.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Whilst not necessarily agreeing with them, their reasoning is entirely about rules simplification. This would be one of the biggest contributors to this objective.

As a referee, most of my interaction with players on the course is explaining or confirming the drop options or procedure. It also seems to the biggest problem are for club players.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yep.  I've noticed that too.  Dropping isn't that complex, yet I'm always surprised about how poorly understood it seems to be.

Originally Posted by Asheville

Judging from our shared experiences, perhaps "dropping" is complex. 1) How to drop isn't too difficult. 2) Where to drop (and in the proposal, where to place) is difficult for all except the most skilled or experienced competitors. 3) When to re-drop is also poorly understood and the always place option will help.

The more I think about it, the rewrite's "place instead of drop" notion might well be a tough sell to the RBs simply because of the horror of a player getting a better lie out of the process. You can see it ... the 1CL and 2CL placings will almost always result in a "teed up" lie. Maybe, place for 1CL and drop for 2CL has merit ... or perhaps it adds another layer of complexity.

Originally Posted by David in FL

I don't mind seeing the option of dropping on the opposite margin of a lateral hazard go away. That's probably one of the least understood/utilized options available anyway.....

Originally Posted by turtleback

There is a reason that pros look very carefully at where they are going to drop a ball.  And carefully consider what relief option they will take or even if they WILL take relief.

But to a lot of players the notion that they should consider what their next shot will be is not something they think about, whether in their shot selection or their relief options.  How many players would have automatically pulled out driver to measure the club-length if in the situation Tiger was in on 18 on Friday?  But Tiger thought about where his ball might end up and chose to measure his club-length with a putter, so if his drop put him in the treeline he would get to redrop.  I don't see the point in taking such strategic thinking out of the game through the Rules.

Originally Posted by iacas

Then they shouldn't drop there.

That's about as simple as it gets.

Under the current rules, I agree with your first statement Erik, but not with the second.  As the rules stand now, there is quite a bit of strategy in dropping.  As turtleback indicates, most players don't even think much about shot strategy let alone dropping strategy.  In terms of speed of play, this is a good thing- imagine if every player who took a drop on a crowded course went through the same process the pros do on TV.

95+% of the players I see completely lack understanding of drop rules/strategy- intuitively they think that if they are being assessed a stroke penalty, they are entitled to a decent lie.  I have seen players who don't normally fluff the ball, re-drop when their first drop was legal or fluff the ball when their drop rolled into a divot, etc.

In my mind, the rules of golf should work the same whether it is the pros playing on TV or one of us playing a casual round.  If the pros regularly call over an official to confirm/approve of their drops, why is it assumed that the average player would not need to do this?  Does the average player know the drop rules better than the pros?  In recent years, I have seen more and more pros re-drop then place and attribute this to a refinement of their dropping strategy i.e. drop in a spot where you are pretty sure that it will roll out of a legal position so that you may then re-drop and place.

If the point of dropping is to create random lies, then why allow a player to intentionally drop in a place where it is the MOST likely that the ball will roll out of a legal position, thus necessitating the ball being placed?  I doubt this is what the intention was when the dropping rule was originally created/last modified.

I think golf has enough shot selection/course management strategy that there doesn't need to be a lot of dropping strategy.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

As the rules stand now, there is quite a bit of strategy in dropping.

I disagree and feel you have an odd definition of "quite a bit."

Originally Posted by MEfree

95+% of the players I see completely lack understanding of drop rules/strategy- intuitively they think that if they are being assessed a stroke penalty, they are entitled to a decent lie.

95+% of the players I see don't feel they are entitled to a decent lie. If the lie they imagine the'll get is poor enough they'll use one of the other drop options (re-hit, line back from the ball).

Do you get my point? It sounds like you're just making things up, or at the very least relying on nothing more than your perception of the particular issue. It's not really all that relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by MEfree

In my mind, the rules of golf should work the same whether it is the pros playing on TV or one of us playing a casual round.

They do. Your example about why a pro calls over a rules official has nothing to do with how the rules of golf "work".

Originally Posted by MEfree

In recent years, I have seen more and more pros re-drop then place and attribute this to a refinement of their dropping strategy i.e. drop in a spot where you are pretty sure that it will roll out of a legal position so that you may then re-drop and place.

Perception; not relevant.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think golf has enough shot selection/course management strategy that there doesn't need to be a lot of dropping strategy.

Good news: there's not!

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree and feel you have an odd definition of "quite a bit."

95+% of the players I see don't feel they are entitled to a decent lie. If the lie they imagine the'll get is poor enough they'll use one of the other drop options (re-hit, line back from the ball).

Do you get my point? It sounds like you're just making things up, or at the very least relying on nothing more than your perception of the particular issue. It's not really all that relevant to the discussion.

They do. Your example about why a pro calls over a rules official has nothing to do with how the rules of golf "work".

Perception; not relevant.

Good news: there's not!

So your point is that there is not much strategy in dropping, yet you say that the players you see will use an alternate drop option if they imagine the lie they will get will be poor enough to warrant it- seems like you are splitting hairs just to disagree with me.  FWIW, it was Turtleback who first said that there is strategy in dropping (which he liked as is).

Given that this is a forum open for discussion, I am not sure why my perception is not relevant.  Sure, it would be stronger if I could say with statistically certainty based on 50 years of PGA Tour data that more players are now going the drop, re-drop, place route, but it means something that having watched TV golf for 30 years that I now notice way more players placing the ball in situations where I never recall seeing PGA pros place the ball in the past.  (Sure, TV coverage can influence ones perception of what they are seeing, but still)

Most of this comes not because there is no place to drop that the ball will stay legal, but that pros seem to be hunting for a drop position where the ball is most likely to roll into an illegal position (i.e. closer to the hole).  In fact, I have seen numerous TV drops where the player actually dropped more than twice because some of his drops resulted in the ball landing closer to the hole (without rolling)- the player's strategy appeared to be based on figuring that if they drop exactly the same distance from the hole, then if it rolls forward 1 mm, they can re-drop then place.  Am I the only one who has noticed this?

Are you saying that just as many pros went the drop, re-drop, place route when drops were back over the shoulder?  Do you want to play behind a group where every player calls someone over to watch them drop, re-drop and place to verify that all the drops are legal and that the placing of the ball is legit?

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

So your point is that there is not much strategy in dropping, yet you say that the players you see will use an alternate drop option if they imagine the lie they will get will be poor enough to warrant it- seems like you are splitting hairs just to disagree with me.  FWIW, it was Turtleback who first said that there is strategy in dropping (which he liked as is).

Given that this is a forum open for discussion, I am not sure why my perception is not relevant.  Sure, it would be stronger if I could say with statistically certainty based on 50 years of PGA Tour data that more players are now going the drop, re-drop, place route, but it means something that having watched TV golf for 30 years that I now notice way more players placing the ball in situations where I never recall seeing PGA pros place the ball in the past.  (Sure, TV coverage can influence ones perception of what they are seeing, but still)

Most of this comes not because there is no place to drop that the ball will stay legal, but that pros seem to be hunting for a drop position where the ball is most likely to roll into an illegal position (i.e. closer to the hole).  In fact, I have seen numerous TV drops where the player actually dropped more than twice because some of his drops resulted in the ball landing closer to the hole (without rolling)- the player's strategy appeared to be based on figuring that if they drop exactly the same distance from the hole, then if it rolls forward 1 mm, they can re-drop then place.  Am I the only one who has noticed this?

Are you saying that just as many pros went the drop, re-drop, place route when drops were back over the shoulder?  Do you want to play behind a group where every player calls someone over to watch them drop, re-drop and place to verify that all the drops are legal and that the placing of the ball is legit?

You don't have to watch, really golf is based on a game of self governing rules. Meaning you call penalties on your self, and you know the rules. PGA tour has rules officials because they can afford to hire rules officials. There are some instances were a pro will call a penalty on himself as well.

Yes the rules state, two club lengths (sometimes one), no closer to the hole. So if you want, you can take the chance and drop the ball near the line and try to get it to fall forward so you then can place it. That is fine, and all with in the rules. I see no problem with it.

Usually when we were in tournament golf in highschool. You would notify your opponent what you were doing, and then drop. As long as your opponent knew you were taking a penalty, lets say for a unplayable lie, then that is fine. Like i said it was a game of self governing rules, with honesty.

Also different drops can be used strategically. Like when you hit a ball into a water hazard,

Quote:

Drop a ball behind the water hazard , keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

I've done this a lot, were i would find the point, line it up between me and the hole, and move back as far as i want. I will tend to pace out a yardage, and hopefully its in the fairway. You can use this also to gain better line of sight if you have tree trouble was well.

But i know the rules, so i can make this decision quickly as well.

[MEfree]

Under the current dropping rules, it is possible to drop a ball and have it wind up Out of Bounds with you being unable to re-drop and required to play it as an OOB.  When this happens, where do you play your next stroke from under rule 27-1?

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Under the current dropping rules, it is possible to drop a ball and have it wind up Out of Bounds with you being unable to re-drop and required to play it as an OOB.  When this happens, where do you play your next stroke from under rule 27-1?

Don't you have access to the Rules? Do you wish someone here to look it up for you just so that you can start an argument with them?

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Asheville

Don't you have access to the Rules? Do you wish someone here to look it up for you just so that you can start an argument with them?

Sure I have access to the rules- it says

b . Ball Out of Bounds

If a ball is out of bounds , the player must play a ball, under penalty of one stroke , as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5 ).

But I don't think this case is so clear.  Suppose I hit a tee ball into the woods and take a 2 club length drop for an unplayable lie and watch the ball roll back to the original spot.  If my understanding of the rules is correct, I don't think I am then allowed to go back to the tee- having forfeited that option when I took my 2 club length drop.  So if I hit the ball into the woods, and take a drop for an unplayable lie and after taking a drop my ball ends up Out of Bounds, do I then go back to the tee?  This seems counter-intuitive.  I suppose I could try hunting through the decisions, but the most obvious place for this to be explained would be decision

20-2c/3.5

but that decision doesn't explain where to play the next shot from (other than saying to proceed under rule 27-1)

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Sure I have access to the rules- it says

b. Ball Out of Bounds

If a ball is out of bounds, the player must play a ball, under penalty of one stroke, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5).

But I don't think this case is so clear.  Suppose I hit a tee ball into the woods and take a 2 club length drop for an unplayable lie and watch the ball roll back to the original spot.  If my understanding of the rules is correct, I don't think I am then allowed to go back to the tee- having forfeited that option when I took my 2 club length drop.  So if I hit the ball into the woods, and take a drop for an unplayable lie and after taking a drop my ball ends up Out of Bounds, do I then go back to the tee?  This seems counter-intuitive.  I suppose I could try hunting through the decisions, but the most obvious place for this to be explained would be decision

20-2c/3.5

but that decision doesn't explain where to play the next shot from (other than saying to proceed under rule 27-1)

You asked a question about dropping rules didn't you? Try looking in Rule 20.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Don't you have access to the Rules? Do you wish someone here to look it up for you just so that you can start an argument with them?

Sure I have access to the rules- it says

b. Ball Out of Bounds

If a ball is out of bounds, the player must play a ball, under penalty of one stroke, as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5).

But I don't think this case is so clear.  Suppose I hit a tee ball into the woods and take a 2 club length drop for an unplayable lie and watch the ball roll back to the original spot.  If my understanding of the rules is correct, I don't think I am then allowed to go back to the tee- having forfeited that option when I took my 2 club length drop.  So if I hit the ball into the woods, and take a drop for an unplayable lie and after taking a drop my ball ends up Out of Bounds, do I then go back to the tee?  This seems counter-intuitive.  I suppose I could try hunting through the decisions, but the most obvious place for this to be explained would be decision

20-2c/3.5

but that decision doesn't explain where to play the next shot from (other than saying to proceed under rule 27-1)

No.  The rule still states " the spot from which the original ball was last played ".  As long as you haven't made a stroke after the drop, you still have the option of returning to the last point where a stroke was made (although the penalty stroke for the drop still counts).  Only if you attempt to play a stroke and fail, then choose to proceed under Rule 28 are you stuck because you can only go back to the last stroke.

In a water hazard it's stated slightly differently, so you get regression to the last point where the ball crossed into the hazard.  Thus any stroke(s) made in the hazard count, but you can still get out of the hazard by taking the penalty under Rule 26-1.  That safety net doesn't exist under Rule 28.