If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?

[Aguirre]

Think of it this way, a thorough reading of Tufts might well lessen the number and frequency of one's uninformed posts in a golf Rules folder. Then again, one might just decide to argue with Tufts, too.

This is a thread about which one rule you would change in golf.  It's not supposed to be a detailed discussion.  And, as I pointed out recently, Tom Watson also doesn't agree with stroke and distance.  That doesn't make him correct, but I suppose you would call him uninformed as well.

[hometeamdawg]

On the stroke and distance issue (realizing that bad breaks are part of the game) it's perplexing that you can hit it 290 in the fairway and get a bad bounce and trickle OB...and I can whiff it...and you're hitting 3 and I'm hitting 2 from the same spot.

[MS256]

Think of it this way, a thorough reading of Tufts might well lessen the number and frequency of one's uninformed posts in a golf Rules folder. Then again, one might just decide to argue with Tufts, too.

I presume you are aware of which thread you are in.

These posts are opinions. They can be completely out in left field to somebody else (or even everybody else) and still not be uninformed.

Plenty of ideas that are now common place accepted rules started out with almost everybody against the idea.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Think of it this way, a thorough reading of Tufts might well lessen the number and frequency of one's uninformed posts in a golf Rules folder. Then again, one might just decide to argue with Tufts, too.

I presume you are aware of which thread you are in.

These posts are opinions. They can be completely out in left field to somebody else (or even everybody else) and still not be uninformed.

Plenty of ideas that are now common place accepted rules started out with almost everybody against the idea.

Name one.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Think of it this way, a thorough reading of Tufts might well lessen the number and frequency of one's uninformed posts in a golf Rules folder. Then again, one might just decide to argue with Tufts, too.

This is a thread about which one rule you would change in golf.  It's not supposed to be a detailed discussion.  And, as I pointed out recently, Tom Watson also doesn't agree with stroke and distance.  That doesn't make him correct, but I suppose you would call him uninformed as well.

Go read some Tufts and come back to talk with us about the Rules.

[iacas]

Go read some Tufts and come back to talk with us about the Rules.

Nobody needs to read it to participate in this thread. This thread is not a strict rules discussion thread. Knock it off please.

[Fourputt]

Point taken.  But the thread is "If you could change a rule..." And 99+% of the ideas here will also never be implemented.

By the way, there have been several prominent names in golf who have positively spoken on the idea of eliminating the drop procedure, and that would be a wonderful start.  If you're taking a penalty, just place the ball and get on with it.  It's not like placing the ball never happens, there are already certain instances where you place the ball.  Why not after any penalty.

Placing the ball only occurs when the correct spot is known and the ball is being replaced , or when a rule requires the ball to be placed on the putting green.  Through the green, or in a bunker, if the exact spot is not known, then the ball must be dropped.  Placing is, in theory, a precise procedure.  Dropping is random to produce a more random lie as would have more likely occurred after playing a stroke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Think of it this way, a thorough reading of Tufts might well lessen the number and frequency of one's uninformed posts in a golf Rules folder. Then again, one might just decide to argue with Tufts, too.

This is a thread about which one rule you would change in golf.  It's not supposed to be a detailed discussion.  And, as I pointed out recently, Tom Watson also doesn't agree with stroke and distance.  That doesn't make him correct, but I suppose you would call him uninformed as well.

Who says that there is no discussion allowed?  As for Tom Watson, while I respect him as a player, by making a statement like that he demonstrates his lack of understanding of the basis for the penalty structure.

On the stroke and distance issue (realizing that bad breaks are part of the game) it's perplexing that you can hit it 290 in the fairway and get a bad bounce and trickle OB...and I can whiff it...and you're hitting 3 and I'm hitting 2 from the same spot.

The ball of the guy who whiffed is still on the golf course.  It lies in a spot from which play is allowed.  The other ball does not. That's all the reason needed.

[Aguirre]

Placing the ball only occurs when the correct spot is known and the ball is being replaced, or when a rule requires the ball to be placed on the putting green.  Through the green, or in a bunker, if the exact spot is not known, then the ball must be dropped.  Placing is, in theory, a precise procedure.  Dropping is random to produce a more random lie as would have more likely occurred after playing a stroke.

Who says that there is no discussion allowed?  As for Tom Watson, while I respect him as a player, by making a statement like that he demonstrates his lack of understanding of the basis for the penalty structure.

The ball of the guy who whiffed is still on the golf course.  It lies in a spot from which play is allowed.  The other ball does not. That's all the reason needed.

I didn't say discussion wasn't allowed.  Here's how good discussion works.  I suggest ending stroke and distance, you disagree, and explain why.  Maybe you'll change my mind.  But don't suggest some book that I'll never read.  My God, read a book about the rules of golf.  I'd rather sew my balls to the carpet.

[David in FL]

I didn't say discussion wasn't allowed.  Here's how good discussion works.  I suggest ending stroke and distance, you disagree, and explain why.  Maybe you'll change my mind.  But don't suggest some book that I'll never read. My God, read a book about the rules of golf.  I'd rather sew my balls to the carpet.

Got it. That demonstrates how little you actually care about the rules, and that you're only interested in arguing. BTW, the book is only 73 pages. You could probably knock it out in a weekend if you really put your mind to it! :-D

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Placing the ball only occurs when the correct spot is known and the ball is being replaced, or when a rule requires the ball to be placed on the putting green.  Through the green, or in a bunker, if the exact spot is not known, then the ball must be dropped.  Placing is, in theory, a precise procedure.  Dropping is random to produce a more random lie as would have more likely occurred after playing a stroke.

Who says that there is no discussion allowed?  As for Tom Watson, while I respect him as a player, by making a statement like that he demonstrates his lack of understanding of the basis for the penalty structure.

The ball of the guy who whiffed is still on the golf course.  It lies in a spot from which play is allowed.  The other ball does not. That's all the reason needed.

I didn't say discussion wasn't allowed.  Here's how good discussion works.  I suggest ending stroke and distance, you disagree, and explain why.  Maybe you'll change my mind.  But don't suggest some book that I'll never read.  My God, read a book about the rules of golf.  I'd rather sew my balls to the carpet.

It's actually actually a 65 page pamphlet.  And by that statement you demonstrate your unwillingness to carry on an informed discussion, so consider this my last comment to you at this time.

[MS256]

Name one.

For starters have you read an NFL or college football rulebook lately? Old schoolers like me can only shake our heads at many of the changes because it's not much like the game we played.

If you had polled any of us in the 70s about making rules like helmet to helmet contact a penalty, an ejection, or a fine we would have thought you had completely lost your mind.

Wide receivers can come across the middle with little fear and the quarterback is protected like a prima donna.

Designated hitters in baseball? Babe Ruth would turn over in his grave.

I remember when the thought of the law requiring people to wear seat belts was totally absurd to most people I knew.

I could actually go on all night but I wont'.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Name one.

For starters have you read an NFL or college football rulebook lately? Old schoolers like me can only shake our heads at many of the changes because it's not much like the game we played.

If you had polled any of us in the 70s about making rules like helmet to helmet contact a penalty, an ejection, or a fine we would have thought you had completely lost your mind.

Wide receivers can come across the middle with little fear and the quarterback is protected like a prima donna.

Designated hitters in baseball? Babe Ruth would turn over in his grave.

I remember when the thought of the law requiring people to wear seat belts was totally absurd to most people I knew.

I could actually go on all night but I wont'.

I asked you for a Rule of Golf. Name one.

[MS256]

I asked you for a Rule of Golf. Name one.

Did I ever mention a rule of golf? SMH!!!

[Aguirre]

It's actually actually a 65 page pamphlet.  And by that statement you demonstrate your unwillingness to carry on an informed discussion, so consider this my last comment to you at this time.

Is this really that kind of thread?  Where we have "informed discussion" about rules of golf?  Because I thought it was light hearted talk about what rules we'd like to change.

BUT DON'T BOTHER REPLYING BECAUSE YOU'VE MADE YOUR LAST COMMENT TO ME AT THIS TIME.

[Aguirre]

Well, I just read that the USGA actually changed the stroke and distance rule in 1960 to only distance, but reinstated in 1961.  The R&A; did the same in 1950 & 1952.

Now, they obviously rescinded the rule because they felt it wasn't punitive enough.  I suppose if they had read this pamphlet they would never have been so foolish.

[Asheville]

Well, I just read that the USGA actually changed the stroke and distance rule in 1960 to only distance, but reinstated in 1961.  The R&A; did the same in 1950 & 1952.

Now, they obviously rescinded the rule because they felt it wasn't punitive enough.  I suppose if they had read this pamphlet they would never have been so foolish.

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin

[hometeamdawg]

Placing the ball only occurs when the correct spot is known and the ball is being replaced, or when a rule requires the ball to be placed on the putting green.  Through the green, or in a bunker, if the exact spot is not known, then the ball must be dropped.  Placing is, in theory, a precise procedure.  Dropping is random to produce a more random lie as would have more likely occurred after playing a stroke.

Who says that there is no discussion allowed?  As for Tom Watson, while I respect him as a player, by making a statement like that he demonstrates his lack of understanding of the basis for the penalty structure.

The ball of the guy who whiffed is still on the golf course.  It lies in a spot from which play is allowed.  The other ball does not. That's all the reason needed.

Good points, and I'm aware of how the rules allow us to drop or place currently.  I was just pointing out that 'placing' the ball is not an alien concept to the game.

And I certainly understand that a ball OB is no longer on the golf course. A lost ball is still on the golf course (in most cases) and the penalty is the same and OB.  I'm not advocating for stroke OR distance for OB or lost ball...but I still find the OB/whiff example to be one of the game's amusing possibilities.

[Fourputt]

Well, I just read that the USGA actually changed the stroke and distance rule in 1960 to only distance, but reinstated in 1961.  The R&A; did the same in 1950 & 1952.

Now, they obviously rescinded the rule because they felt it wasn't punitive enough.  I suppose if they had read this pamphlet they would never have been so foolish.

Let me see if I can explain it to you then.  The penalties are not designed to be "punitive".  They exist to ensure that the player does not gain an advantage from breaking a rule, and that includes hitting the ball off the playing field.

The experiment of stroke only for a ball out of bounds was made and quickly discontinued for that reason, and that reason alone.  Stroke only did not balance the advantage gained versus the severity of the mistake of hitting his off the golf course.  It was more in keeping with the basic principle that the player should only gain distance toward the hole by way of playing his ball with strokes under the rules, and keeping it in play.   One of the two most fundamental principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it, and when you hit the ball off the course, you are no longer "playing the course".

The player whose ball is lost in a water hazard is given the benefit of the distance traveled outside of the water hazard because the hazard is still part of the golf course.  His ball still lies on the course, and if the water had evaporated, he would be allowed to play the ball.  This is not so when the ball is out of bounds (or lost, because the location of the ball is not known, so how can one know what distance was gained, or if the ball is still on the course?), so a stiffer penalty is required to balance the potential gain against the fundamental principle of only allowing the player to advance the ball by way of playing a stroke at a ball which lies on the course to another point on the course.