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

[Fourputt]

Ready golf is fine if done correctly.  However, I've played with guys that think it is always their turn first, even if I am ready and away.

With the guys I play with most often, two players will sometimes play at the same time.  No reason not to if you are in the rough on opposite sides of the fairway and not disturbing each other.  Order of play is irrelevant in stroke play, despite the wording of the rule.

And I'd give a free drop out of divots.

Under what rule?  Rule 25 is Abnormal ground.  There is nothing abnormal about a divot hole (the divot is the piece of turf that was removed) on a golf course.  Therefore there is no reason to give relief.

[David in FL]

How do you know where to drop if your ball is lost?

Maybe every hole has a drop area?  Or the last place it crossed over from fairway into rough / woods / whatever?

How do you define a "divot", and at what exact point does a divot no longer become a divot?

I guess a divot is a spot where a chunk of grass has been taken out of the fairway by a previous player hitting the ball.  I'd also probably include include when a ball sets down in a ball mark of a previous player - although I've never seen or heard of that happening.

I see your point with wanting a line of demarcation. In my own experience and in watching TV, I don't remember having a lot of trouble determining when a ball landed in a divot.  You see a ball sitting in a spot that was previously fairway, but is now a hole in the fairway filled with sand (or worse - no sand!).  We could at least start with what is clearly a divot.

You see it on TV all the time and hear Miller and McCord say, "don't roll in the divot! - oh, bad break, it rolled in the divot."  Then when the player lines up to hit, Miller tells us how it is now going to make a really big divot because he's going to hit ball first then his divot will start at the spot where the existing divot ends.  Then they do a slow-mo close up of the club striking the ball in the divot.  They say divot 25+ times.  I've always taken their word for it that it is a ball in a divot.

There are a lot of times that a ball is lost that there isn't a well defined place that it "crossed".  It also means that a lost or OB ball would potentially receive less penalty than one that you find, is on the golf course but is in a poor or unplayable position.  Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction, not provide a cheap way out of a bad situation brought on by a poor shot.

A divot is subjective.  The rules simply cannot allow for subjective interpretation in order to ensure equity, i.e. that like situations are treated alike for all players.  Moreover, as @Fourputt explains, a divot is a natural part of the golf course itself.  To be sure, it's a part that we don't like, but it's as much a part of the game as any other piece of luck, good or bad, that comes our way.

I highly recommend Richard Tufts's book, The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf to the OP, any serious golfer, and to anyone with even a passing interest in the Rules and how they relate to the core principles behind the game itself.  Interestingly, in Appendix II, Mr Tufts discusses the concept of changing the penalty for OB or lost balls and, given the interest in many recreational golfers to do so, that there was actually a study and brief experiment to determine if it would be feasible while still maintaining the integrity of the principles of the game.  The short version......absolutely not.  The reasons I mentioned being just a small part of the explanation.

The entire book is short and well worth the read.  You can find it for something like $3 on the USGA website.

[Meltdwhiskey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Ready golf is fine if done correctly.  However, I've played with guys that think it is always their turn first, even if I am ready and away.

With the guys I play with most often, two players will sometimes play at the same time.  No reason not to if you are in the rough on opposite sides of the fairway and not disturbing each other.  Order of play is irrelevant in stroke play, despite the wording of the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

And I'd give a free drop out of divots.

Under what rule?  Rule 25 is Abnormal ground.  There is nothing abnormal about a divot hole (the divot is the piece of turf that was removed) on a golf course.  Therefore there is no reason to give relief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey

How do you know where to drop if your ball is lost?

Maybe every hole has a drop area?  Or the last place it crossed over from fairway into rough / woods / whatever?

How do you define a "divot", and at what exact point does a divot no longer become a divot?

I guess a divot is a spot where a chunk of grass has been taken out of the fairway by a previous player hitting the ball.  I'd also probably include include when a ball sets down in a ball mark of a previous player - although I've never seen or heard of that happening.

I see your point with wanting a line of demarcation. In my own experience and in watching TV, I don't remember having a lot of trouble determining when a ball landed in a divot.  You see a ball sitting in a spot that was previously fairway, but is now a hole in the fairway filled with sand (or worse - no sand!).  We could at least start with what is clearly a divot.

You see it on TV all the time and hear Miller and McCord say, "don't roll in the divot! - oh, bad break, it rolled in the divot."  Then when the player lines up to hit, Miller tells us how it is now going to make a really big divot because he's going to hit ball first then his divot will start at the spot where the existing divot ends.  Then they do a slow-mo close up of the club striking the ball in the divot.  They say divot 25+ times.  I've always taken their word for it that it is a ball in a divot.

There are a lot of times that a ball is lost that there isn't a well defined place that it "crossed".  It also means that a lost or OB ball would potentially receive less penalty than one that you find, is on the golf course but is in a poor or unplayable position.  Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction, not provide a cheap way out of a bad situation brought on by a poor shot.

A divot is subjective.  The rules simply cannot allow for subjective interpretation in order to ensure equity, i.e. that like situations are treated alike for all players.  Moreover, as @Fourputt explains, a divot is a natural part of the golf course itself.  To be sure, it's a part that we don't like, but it's as much a part of the game as any other piece of luck, good or bad, that comes our way.

I highly recommend Richard Tufts's book, The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf to the OP, any serious golfer, and to anyone with even a passing interest in the Rules and how they relate to the core principles behind the game itself.  Interestingly, in Appendix II, Mr Tufts discusses the concept of changing the penalty for OB or lost balls and, given the interest in many recreational golfers to do so, that there was actually a study and brief experiment to determine if it would be feasible while still maintaining the integrity of the principles of the game.  The short version......absolutely not.  The reasons I mentioned being just a small part of the explanation.

The entire book is short and well worth the read.  You can find it for something like $3 on the USGA website.

With the guys I play with most often, two players will sometimes play at the same time.  No reason not to if you are in the rough on opposite sides of the fairway and not disturbing each other.  Order of play is irrelevant in stroke play, despite the wording of the rule.

Whatup Fourputt?  I had a feeling I'd hear from you on this - or anything else about the rules.  I like the new avatar.  Is that an impressionist? or is it just an effect in a photo?

Anyway - I agree.  If you are that far away from each other, fire away.

Under what rule?  Rule 25 is Abnormal ground.  There is nothing abnormal about a divot hole (the divot is the piece of turf that was removed) on a golf course.  Therefore there is no reason to give relief.

Maybe I misunderstood.  And I see now that this is a freshly bumped thread.  I thought we were changing the rules - and it seems arbitrarily punitive to me to hit out of divots in the fairway.  They asked what I'd like to change, that's what I'd like to change.

And I would call a divot (or divot hole) abnormal. They make up a small percentage of the overall acreage of the fairway and hence would be possibly be defined as abnormal since "normal" would be non-divot area making up the vast percentage of the area.  Also, someone recently took it from normal to divot when they smashed a piece of the turf out of the ground with a metal club.

There are a lot of times that a ball is lost that there isn't a well defined place that it "crossed".  It also means that a lost or OB ball would potentially receive less penalty than one that you find, is on the golf course but is in a poor or unplayable position.  Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction, not provide a cheap way out of a bad situation brought on by a poor shot.

There are a lot of times a ball went into a hazard and it isn't a well defined place that it "crossed". Same parallel goes for a ball going into a hazard that could potentially receive less penalty than one you find.  Not sure why lines marking OB would be treated differently than lines marking a hazard. Both are places you aren't supposed to hit.  And if you get technical about it, one in the middle of a pond is also pretty lost.  But for some reason, they drew lines around the pond that said - don't worry about going back to re-tee, just lay it here by the line with less penalty.

As far as the severity of the infraction, maybe the rough is high and I lost my ball 8 inches off the fairway but my buddy went 30 yards offline and hit into the middle of the lake.  I hit the better shot but am penalized more.  And worse, I now have to slow down the game to go re-tee.  And sometimes the OB is really close to the fairway. I've seen it where it runs the edge of the cart path.  And yet a 6' ditch that is super easy to hit over gets the 1-stroke treatment.  Penalties don't always increase with the severity of the infraction.

A divot is subjective.  The rules simply cannot allow for subjective interpretation in order to ensure equity, i.e. that like situations are treated alike for all players.  Moreover, as @Fourputt explains, a divot is a natural part of the golf course itself.  To be sure, it's a part that we don't like, but it's as much a part of the game as any other piece of luck, good or bad, that comes our way.

The rules can allow for subjective interpretation - and I think they do.  If memory serves, a couple weeks ago Bubba was able to take free relief because his ball was beside hole made by a burrowing animal.  So I guess there was an official who had to determine if indeed there was was a hole made by a burrowing animal.  Further, I guess at some point, said hole becomes a former home of a burrowing animal and wind and rain will at some point turn it back into normal ground.  AND - the ball wasn't IN the hole. It was near it. The club hitting the hole was the issue.  I imagine that meant he might hit the side of the hole or a mound formed by dirt that was formerly inside the hole.

So - without advanced forestry or wildlife management training, an official is supposed to determine at what point this hole (or mound) is a hole and then at what exact point in time it becomes normal ground again. Just like he could with a divot.

As far as a divot being a 'natural' part of the course - a guy before you scooping up the turf with a club is less natural than an animal who dug up some dirt.

Also subjective are things like if you took a proper drop. Look at what happened to Tiger at the Masters.  Over and over with the video and if it was close enough to the original divot.  Some officials thought yes, like the ones on site who didn't penalize him.  And some thought no, like the one who called it in after watching it on TV.

And there are probably more subjective calls that I don't know about.

I highly recommend Richard Tufts's book, The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf to the OP, any serious golfer, and to anyone with even a passing interest in the Rules and how they relate to the core principles behind the game itself.  Interestingly, in Appendix II, Mr Tufts discusses the concept of changing the penalty for OB or lost balls and, given the interest in many recreational golfers to do so, that there was actually a study and brief experiment to determine if it would be feasible while still maintaining the integrity of the principles of the game.  The short version......absolutely not.  The reasons I mentioned being just a small part of the explanation.

The entire book is short and well worth the read.  You can find it for something like $3 on the USGA website.

I have this book.  And if I believed that we played golf under this, I'd be more on your side.  A real purist way to look at it.  But the book lays out 2 chief principles as the defining way we should play golf.  I actually took a picture of the sentences in a magazine once before I had the book so I could carry it around with me.  They are:

1)  That you play your ball from the tee and never touch it until you remove it from the hole

2)  That you play the course as you find it

These are awesome.  But we don't do either.  Chiefly, we don't do #1.  Every golfer I see - at the course and on TV - touches the ball on every single hole they play.

And even if they didn't - the way I understand the unplayable rule, you could technically pick the ball up after any shot and replay it any time you wanted with an S&D; penalty.  "Unplayable" is at the sole discretion of the golfer, right?

We also have provisions for not doing the second: casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animals, etc.

And don't get me started on Winter Rules or Lift, Clean and Place!

And I can already hear the reasons that these things are OK despite flying in the face of the 2 principles.  I've even argued some of them with Fourputt in the thread in the rules section about the Tufts book. So I don't want to do that again.

I love the 2 principles, but I believe we left them in the dust long ago.  And since we have deviated from that purist vision in favor of practicality and fairness - then I'd like to do the same with these 2 rules and for the same practicality and fairness.

[iacas]

I love the 2 principles, but I believe we left them in the dust long ago.  And since we have deviated from that purist vision in favor of practicality and fairness - then I'd like to do the same with these 2 rules and for the same practicality and fairness.

The point is we adhere to them when possible, as much as possible, as closely as possible. I disagree that we've "left them in the dust."

But that thread is here: .

[Golfingdad]

Under what rule?  Rule 25 is Abnormal ground.  There is nothing abnormal about a divot hole (the divot is the piece of turf that was removed) on a golf course.  Therefore there is no reason to give relief.

Yeah, I think you kind of missed the point of the thread.  Under what rule?  Well, the rule that he is MAKING UP RIGHT NOW because the thread is specifically about CHANGING the rules.

You can't argue that a rule he wants to hypothetically change can't be done because it's currently against the rules to do so.  That makes no sense.

-------------------------------------------

Personally, I have no problems hitting from out of divots ... I kind of like the challenge.

And I can't think of a rule that I'd like changed off the top of my head.  The rules are pretty rock-solid to me, I think.

[Meltdwhiskey]

The point is we adhere to them when possible, as much as possible, as closely as possible. I disagree that we've "left them in the dust."

But that thread is here: ​ .

I agree with you on what the point is.  I just don't agree that we're doing it.  When the principle is that you don't touch your ball, and then 100% of pro golfers touch their ball on 100% of the golf holes they play (except hole-outs I guess), I feel we've left them in the dust.  This principle happens 0% of the time.  If we were adhering to your standard above, I'd bet we'd see them adhere to it upwards of 1% of the time.

I'm also not sure LC&P; because it rained yesterday is adhering to your standard.  And I don't want to sound like I'm railing against these things. I think they were designed to make the game better. And while we're doing that - I think my 2 little ideas also make it better.  Actually, the weekend warriors I see most of the time have already instituted them!

[iacas]

I agree with you on what the point is.  I just don't agree that we're doing it.  When the principle is that you don't touch your ball, and then 100% of pro golfers touch their ball on 100% of the golf holes they play (except hole-outs I guess), I feel we've left them in the dust.

This is OT for this thread, but I said "as much as possible" (among other things). The book explains why you can pick your ball up on the green. You clearly have thoughts on this, so post in the thread I linked to above.

And while we're doing that - I think my 2 little ideas also make it better.  Actually, the weekend warriors I see most of the time have already instituted them!

The problem with your one example is that you cannot adequately define a "divot hole" in such a way that everyone can apply the definition the same. Put another way: when does a divot hole cease to be a divot hole? There's no clear line or point in time.

Also, divot holes exist in the rough, and the Rules don't define the fairway.

Playing out of the occasional (seriously, that almost never happens) divot hole is closer to adhering to the Principles than letting you drop.

[boogielicious]

With the guys I play with most often, two players will sometimes play at the same time.  No reason not to if you are in the rough on opposite sides of the fairway and not disturbing each other.  Order of play is irrelevant in stroke play, despite the wording of the rule.

I agree with that @Fourputt .  But these guys I've played with act like your not there.  I would set up to hit and they would ignore that and hit anyway. I avoid them whenever possible.

[Meltdwhiskey]

The problem with your one example is that you cannot adequately define a "divot hole" in such a way that everyone can apply the definition the same. Put another way: when does a divot hole cease to be a divot hole? There's no clear line or point in time.

Also, divot holes exist in the rough, and the Rules don't define the fairway.

Playing out of the occasional (seriously, that almost never happens) divot hole is closer to adhering to the Principles than letting you drop.

When does a divot hole cease to be a divot hole?

At the same point in time a burrowing animal hole ceases to be a burrowing animal hole

Also, divot holes exist in the rough, and the Rules don't define the fairway.

I didn't know the fairway wasn't defined.  I've often heard that "Winter Rules" apply only to the fairway.  So someone is finding a way.  But to make it easy, I'll say any divot anywhere.

I think y'all are really trying to make something difficult out of something that isn't so complicated.  Is your ball in a divot?  Yes.  Then you get a drop.  In the VAST majority of instances, this is plain as day - like in the Miller / McCord scenario I outlined above.  In all but a very few cases would this be in dispute. In such cases, a ruling can be made as to if it is still a divot or has become real ground again.  Just like the groundhog.

Playing out of the occasional (seriously, that almost never happens) divot hole is closer to adhering to the Principles than letting you drop.

As previously stated, since we have already significantly deviated from the principles in order to make the game better, then I also am no longer trying to adhere as closely to them.

[iacas]

When does a divot hole cease to be a divot hole?

At the same point in time a burrowing animal hole ceases to be a burrowing animal hole

No, that doesn't cut it. A hole is a hole. When it's filled in, it's no longer a hole. Divot holes (despite being incorrectly named "holes") can be partially filled in.

Please answer the question. Provide a definition for a divot hole that does is non-ambiguous. The pornography definition of "I know it when I see it" doesn't apply here.

I think y'all are really trying to make something difficult out of something that isn't so complicated.  Is your ball in a divot?  Yes. Then you get a drop.

I say no, your ball is not in a divot hole. I say your divot hole was probably once a divot hole, but is not anymore.

So now what? Where's that leave us?

In all but a very few cases would this be in dispute. In such cases, a ruling can be made as to if it is still a divot or has become real ground again.  Just like the groundhog.

I disagree. Every divot hole on the golf course is in a varying stage of recovery (not to mention some divot holes are trenches while others are just little scuffs of the grass, barely touching the roots or dirt). EVERY divot hole is in varying states. There's no clear line when a former divot hole ceases to be a "divot hole."

It's only clear on the PGA Tour because most of those divot holes are a day or two old.

[David in FL]

(SNIP)

And even if they didn't - the way I understand the unplayable rule, you could technically pick the ball up after any shot and replay it any time you wanted with an S&D; penalty.  "Unplayable" is at the sole discretion of the golfer, right?

We also have provisions for not doing the second: casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animals, etc.

And don't get me started on Winter Rules or Lift, Clean and Place!

And I can already hear the reasons that these things are OK despite flying in the face of the 2 principles.  I've even argued some of them with Fourputt in the thread in the rules section about the Tufts book. So I don't want to do that again.

I love the 2 principles, but I believe we left them in the dust long ago.  And since we have deviated from that purist vision in favor of practicality and fairness - then I'd like to do the same with these 2 rules and for the same practicality and fairness.

We left the principles "in the dust" because you're allowed to mark your ball on the green?  Good grief......

Bubba's situation wasn't subjective at all.  The hole was determined to be that of a burrowing animal.  That's all there was to it.  That, casual water, GUR, etc... all fall under the category of "abnormal ground conditions".  There is nothing abnormal about a divot on the golf course.  It's part of the course, and part of the game.

You're right, these threads tend to be pretty consistent.  Those that want to change rules want to change them because they don't like the rule, and the consequences for the rule.  Before you know it, they're arguing that because they're allowed to mark our ball on the green, they should be allowed to pick it up and move it out of a lie they don't like on the course.....

And finally.......no one ever said that golf was fair, just that each golfer be treated the same, under the same circumstances. Until someone can define when a divot is no longer a divot, that just isn't possible.

Of course, none of this says that buddies playing together can't play by any variation of the rules that they like.  Roll 'em, play OB/lost as they would a water hazard, ground a club in a hazard, tap down spike marks, whatever.  Have at it and have fun.  Especially if it keeps them moving faster.

[flopster]

Lost ball to distance only and search time down to 2 minutes, two reasons we amatuers don't have the advantage the guys on TV have of cameras and 1000 eyes watching our ball, also this will get players to start using provisionals more frequently and speed up play and only 2 minute searches will speed it up as well. In the mid 60's the rule was distance only for a short time.

[Meltdwhiskey]

We left the principles "in the dust" because you're allowed to mark your ball on the green?  Good grief......

Bubba's situation wasn't subjective at all.  The hole was determined to be that of a burrowing animal.  That's all there was to it.  That, casual water, GUR, etc... all fall under the category of "abnormal ground conditions".  There is nothing abnormal about a divot on the golf course.  It's part of the course, and part of the game.

You're right, these threads tend to be pretty consistent.  Those that want to change rules want to change them because they don't like the rule, and the consequences for the rule.  Before you know it, they're arguing that because they're allowed to mark our ball on the green, they should be allowed to pick it up and move it out of a lie they don't like on the course.....

And finally.......no one ever said that golf was fair, just that each golfer be treated the same, under the same circumstances. Until someone can define when a divot is no longer a divot, that just isn't possible.

Of course, none of this says that buddies playing together can't play by any variation of the rules that they like.  Roll 'em, play OB/lost as they would a water hazard, ground a club in a hazard, tap down spike marks, whatever.  Have at it and have fun.  Especially if it keeps them moving faster.

We left the principles "in the dust" because you're allowed to mark your ball on the green?  Good grief......

We NEVER do it. It is adhered to 0% of the time.

Bubba's situation wasn't subjective at all. The hole was determined to be that of a burrowing animal.  That's all there was to it.

Then mine isn't subjective either.  My ball is determine to be in a divot - that is all there is to it.

Those that want to change rules want to change them because they don't like the rule, and the consequences for the rule.

Truth is, I don't have a huge dog in this hunt.  I'm not petitioning to have any rules changed.  But it is a philosophical thread and I thought of a couple that I think would be better done another way.  OF COURSE people who want rules changed because they don't like it and because of the consequences. They change rules in all sports all the time trying to find ways to make the game better, more fair, more practical, etc.  That's why I've mentioned these.

no one ever said that golf was fair, just that each golfer be treated the same, under the same circumstances.

It was you who wrote: Penalties should increase with the severity of the infraction. You brought up the fairness aspect.

Until someone can define when a divot is no longer a divot, that just isn't possible.

Once again - it is exactly as possible as determining when a burrowing animal hole is no longer one after the animal has moved on and wind, rain and grass have begun to reclaim it.  I've seen arguments over casual water, too.  It isn't like there is no wiggle room there either.

The thread asks how I would change the rules.  The answer is the two ways I've listed.  It is like you are trying to tell me I'm wrong about my own thoughts.  I believe I can apply the same penalties to Lost / OB as hazards.  It doesn't even seem that hard to me.  I also believe I can add divots to abnormal conditions and judge them like grounhog houses.  Once again doesn't even seem hard to me.

[iacas]

We left the principles "in the dust" because you're allowed to mark your ball on the green?  Good grief......

We NEVER do it. It is adhered to 0% of the time.

I don't feel you're correct, and for the last time, it's off topic for this thread. That means you too @David in FL . :) Use the other thread to discuss the Principles in general.

Once again - it is exactly as possible as determining when a burrowing animal hole is no longer one after the animal has moved on and wind, rain and grass have begun to reclaim it.  I've seen arguments over casual water, too.  It isn't like there is no wiggle room there either.

I disagree. A hole is a hole. And casual water has a fairly clear process. The presence of water is much closer to a binary state than "is this still a divot hole"?

[David in FL]

No, that doesn't cut it. A hole is a hole. When it's filled in, it's no longer a hole. Divot holes (despite being incorrectly named "holes") can be partially filled in.

Please answer the question. Provide a definition for a divot hole that does is non-ambiguous. The pornography definition of "I know it when I see it" doesn't apply here.

I say no, your ball is not in a divot hole. I say your divot hole was probably once a divot hole, but is not anymore.

So now what? Where's that leave us?

I disagree. Every divot hole on the golf course is in a varying stage of recovery (not to mention some divot holes are trenches while others are just little scuffs of the grass, barely touching the roots or dirt). EVERY divot hole is in varying states. There's no clear line when a former divot hole ceases to be a "divot hole."

It's only clear on the PGA Tour because most of those divot holes are a day or two old.

I was in one yesterday on a par-5 that was completely healed.  It may have been 6 months old.  The turf was fine, but the depression and outline of the original divot were clear, and the lie was definitely impacted.  I ended up playing an iron where I would have preferred to hit 3-wood.

Lost ball to distance only and search time down to 2 minutes, two reasons we amatuers don't have the advantage the guys on TV have of cameras and 1000 eyes watching our ball, also this will get players to start using provisionals more frequently and speed up play and only 2 minute searches will speed it up as well. In the mid 60's the rule was distance only for a short time.

For a very short time.  They realized that you were being given a less severe penalty for losing your golf ball, or hitting it completely off the golf course, than you potentially would for simply hitting it into a bush, the woods, or some other relatively poor lie.  That short, failed experiment is addressed in depth in Tufts's book.

[Golfingdad]

No, that doesn't cut it. A hole is a hole. When it's filled in, it's no longer a hole. Divot holes (despite being incorrectly named "holes") can be partially filled in.

Please answer the question. Provide a definition for a divot hole that does is non-ambiguous. The pornography definition of "I know it when I see it" doesn't apply here.

Does it have to be non-ambiguous? ...

I was in one yesterday on a par-5 that was completely healed.  It may have been 6 months old.  The turf was fine, but the depression and outline of the original divot were clear, and the lie was definitely impacted.  I ended up playing an iron where I would have preferred to hit 3-wood.

I feel like you guys are being a little too, I don't know, stand-off-ish, maybe, with this.  If somebody is talking about making it so you don't have to hit it out of a divot hole, then they're basically saying that you should have a clean lie each time your ball is on grass ... i.e., their saying that we should always play winter rules.

So, to answer the question in this hypothetical thread about new rules, why can't it simply be ... if it looks like it might be a divot hole, then it is?  Simple as that.  Drop your ball onto a perfect piece of grass, and play away.

[David L Yskes]

while i didnt read every response...

I think a few that i'd change is....

being able to clean a ball if its on the fringe of the green..

defining what a bunker is or isnt...  ala Dustin Johnson @ Whistling Stra its in 2010....... basically if it's not a man made bunker hole, then its just part of the rough or fairway..

oh and for the PGA tour..... get rid of the F-n lazy ass people who call in to report someone doing something against the rules.....  and then after the fact DQ'n them or penalizing them...  I mean do they call into your bosses and rat you out and cost you a paycheck??

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Does it have to be non-ambiguous? ...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If somebody is talking about making it so you don't have to hit it out of a divot hole, then they're basically saying that you should have a clean lie each time your ball is on grass ... i.e., their saying that we should always play winter rules.

Uhm, if that's what golf becomes, I may be one of the first people to stop playing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

So, to answer the question in this hypothetical thread about new rules, why can't it simply be ... if it looks like it might be a divot hole, then it is?  Simple as that.  Drop your ball onto a perfect piece of grass, and play away.

Because no two people can always agree on what is or isn't a divot hole.

C'mon, Barney, you've seen enough of these discussions to know that nobody's overcome that point yet. A player says "my ball's in a divot hole." Another player says "nah, looks like it's healed up." Or maybe he thinks it's a footprint and not a divot hole at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David L Yskes

being able to clean a ball if its on the fringe of the green..

The fringe is often cut at fairway height, so there's no real line about where the "fringe" ends. It's usually obvious where it starts, I'll grant you that. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by David L Yskes

defining what a bunker is or isnt...  ala Dustin Johnson @ Whistling Straits in 2010....... basically if it's not a man made bunker hole, then its just part of the rough or fairway..

The Rules of Golf does that pretty well:

Quote:

Bunker

A “ bunker ’’ is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker , including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker . A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker . The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker .

Just because Dustin didn't bother to notice that he was in a bunker (sand - all the sand on the course was a bunker) doesn't mean we have a bad rule on our hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David L Yskes

oh and for the PGA tour..... get rid of the F-n lazy ass people who call in to report someone doing something against the rules.....  and then after the fact DQ'n them or penalizing them...  I mean do they call into your bosses and rat you out and cost you a paycheck??

Well, I'm not touching that one, except to say that you can probably count on one hand the number of times people have called in a rules infraction. It almost never happens.

---

P.S. I'm done with the thread for a bit. I don't want to respond with what I think are the reasonable arguments why we HAVE existing rules or why they are the way they are every time someone suggests a rules change, and I feel like I do that too often. Like I just did to @David L Yskes (sorry :D).