Re-dropping- Why 2 club lengths?

[jlbos83]

It is a weak sauce version of the twist @MEfree loves to throw in to these rules discussions. He starts them and gets people to answer and then introduces a twist later about what he THINKS it SHOULD be. This is just the latest and weakest version of that.

He has a long history here as they said above. Welcome to the site @jlbos83. I do not play much in the Rules forum but it is one of the best out there that I can see, and the whole site too.

Thanks for the welcome!

I am a poor golfer, but I am fascinated by the rules!  And I find they usually make a lot of sense!

[Hatchman]

I may not have read the principles book, but I have read lots of posts here that talk about it and think I have a pretty good idea what the book is about. It seems to me, that many rules of golf actually violate the basic principle of "play the ball as it lies" in the interest of "playability" While this is probably a good thing, it seems that almost every rule tweak (and they do get changed from time to time) can be justified. I'd be happy to read a free copy. Please PM for the address to send it. Thx

Now that's just rude to ask for a fee copy that has printing costs and mailing charges. I thought you were serious at first.

[MEfree]

I believe the pace-of-play argument in cases like this is a red herring.  If you are keeping up with the group in front an occasional trip back by one player isn't going to gum up the works.

I think it depends on the course you play, the skill level of the golfers (and whether they actually follow the rules). Pace of play aside, doesn't it seem unfair (or unlucky or at the very least, poorly thought out) to take a stroke penalty to have the right to drop a ball 2 club lengths away only to watch the ball roll back into the exact same position?

[MEfree]

Where in the Principles booklet that you have refused to read despite people having offered to send it to you for free does it say that pace of play matters more than adhering to those basic principles?

[quote name="Hatchman" url="/t/83236/re-dropping-why-2-club-lengths/18#post_1168820"] Now that's just rude to ask for a fee copy that has printing costs and mailing charges. I thought you were serious at first.[/quote] I wasn't the one who initiated the free copy request...Erik has pointed out on numerous occasions that I have been offered a free copy yet, I don't recall seeing this actually offered. I'll stop asking for a free copy as soon as Erik stops saying I have been offered one.

[iacas]

I may not have read the principles book, but I have read lots of posts here that talk about it and think I have a pretty good idea what the book is about.

Uhm, no. Your very next sentence illustrates that you do not have a pretty good idea.

I'd be happy to read a free copy. Please PM for the address to send it. Thx

The free copy was not offered by me, and was quite some time ago. You refused the free copy when offered. Go buy a copy yourself. The Rules of Golf clearly interest you.

I wasn't the one who initiated the free copy request...Erik has pointed out on numerous occasions that I have been offered a free copy yet, I don't recall seeing this actually offered. I'll stop asking for a free copy as soon as Erik stops saying I have been offered one.

You were offered one. The offer - not made by me, because for ****'s sake it's like $2 - may or may not still be in effect, but I'm assuming it's not. I have no reason to stop saying that. It's the truth.

https://usgashop.com/Media/Books/id-USGAED0021/The_Principles_Behind_the_Rules_of_Golf_Hardcover - Oh noes! 50% price increase! Now $3!!!

[Hatchman]

I think it depends on the course you play, the skill level of the golfers (and whether they actually follow the rules). Pace of play aside, doesn't it seem unfair (or unlucky or at the very least, poorly thought out) to take a stroke penalty to have the right to drop a ball 2 club lengths away only to watch the ball roll back into the exact same position?

Maybe you are serious. What do you want, place it anywhere? Next just write any score you think you should have made on the hole, if the dumb drop didn't occur by my initial actions.

[MEfree]

Uhm, no. Your very next sentence illustrates that you do not have a pretty good idea. The free copy was not offered by me, and was quite some time ago. You refused the free copy when offered. Go buy a copy yourself. The Rules of Golf clearly interest you.

I would have already bought a copy but haven't seen anything posted about this book that resonates with me- yes, lots of it makes sense, but none of what makes sense seems really would change my thinking. I never recall refusing a free copy...I really think you are just making that up or have a fuzzy recollection.

[jlbos83]

I think it depends on the course you play, the skill level of the golfers (and whether they actually follow the rules). Pace of play aside, doesn't it seem unfair (or unlucky or at the very least, poorly thought out) to take a stroke penalty to have the right to drop a ball 2 club lengths away only to watch the ball roll back into the exact same position?

No, not unfair.  I've had it happen, and said, "Why did I think I wanted to drop there?  Of course it rolled back!"  Unlucky, perhaps, but the poor thinking was on my part.

Since the golfer is the determiner of the unplayable condition, he can't get to decide whether he has gotten "relief", nor does the rule say anything to imply that he is guaranteed relief... in the middle of a big shrub there might not be relief within two clubs.

[MEfree]

No, not unfair.  I've had it happen, and said, "Why did I think I wanted to drop there?  Of course it rolled back!"  Unlucky, perhaps, but the poor thinking was on my part. Since the golfer is the determiner of the unplayable condition, he can't get to decide whether he has gotten "relief", nor does the rule say anything to imply that he is guaranteed relief... in the middle of a big shrub there might not be relief within two clubs.

I agree with you, but by only giving you 2 clubs and allowing the ball to roll 2 clubs, there is always a remote chance the ball will roll back. If you were allowed 2 clubs and only 1 club of roll, at least you would be able to make sure you ended up at least 1 club from where your started. As it stands now, you end up 0 to 4 clubs away from where you started. With 1 club of roll before re-dropping, it would be 1 to 3 clubs away (unless you dropped less than two clubs away to begin with). Can anyone point to something in the Principles book that says why 0 to 4 is better than 1 to 3? FWIW, I do understand that allowing for 2 clubs of roll will result in fewer re-drops than only allowing for 1 cl.

[iacas]

I would have already bought a copy but haven't seen anything posted about this book that resonates with me- yes, lots of it makes sense, but none of what makes sense seems really would change my thinking. I never recall refusing a free copy...I really think you are just making that up or have a fuzzy recollection.

To the issue of resonating with you, balogna. You post quite frequently about the Rules, and clearly have a… let's call it "interest" in them. The Principles booklet speaks to the core of the Rules of Golf. As such it's right up your alley. And again, it's a whopping $3 and a 30-minute read (though that's just going straight through without stopping to consider, re-read, etc.).

To the issue wherein you imply that I'm lying… you were tagged in this thread ( ) and were offered a free copy in a PM on which I was CCed. If you wanted a public personal offer, well, you're just expecting too much. You were offered one generally (the thread) and personally (in a PM).

I agree with you, but by only giving you 2 clubs and allowing the ball to roll 2 clubs, there is always a remote chance the ball will roll back.

So what? That's the risk you take. After all, you're already getting the benefit of dropping your ball from a place from which you think it is UNPLAYABLE. After all, if you could do better than to move your ball two clublengths with a shot, you'd just take the shot.

Can anyone point to something in the Principles book that says why 0 to 4 is better than 1 to 3?

The Rules of Golf are not concerned with pointing out why something that exists is "better" than a rules change someone makes up in their own mind.

[MEfree]

To the issue of resonating with you, balogna. You post quite frequently about the Rules, and clearly have a… let's call it "interest" in them. The Principles booklet speaks to the core of the Rules of Golf. As such it's right up your alley. And again, it's a whopping $3 and a 30-minute read (though that's just going straight through without stopping to consider, re-read, etc.). To the issue wherein you imply that I'm lying… you were tagged in this thread ([CONTENTEMBED=/t/70978/who-wants-a-copy-of-the-principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf layout=inline]​[/CONTENTEMBED]) and were offered a free copy in a PM on which I was CCed. If you wanted a public personal offer, well, you're just expecting too much. You were offered one generally (the thread) and personally (in a PM). So what? That's the risk you take. After all, you're already getting the benefit of dropping your ball from a place from which you think it is UNPLAYABLE. After all, if you could do better than to move your ball two clublengths with a shot, you'd just take the shot. The Rules of Golf are not concerned with pointing out why something that exists is "better" than a rules change someone makes up in their own mind.

I missed that thread that was during my ski season when I don't get to this forum much. Is this the PM you were talking about? Request Conversation between iacas and me iacas Sep 26, 2013 at 3:15 pm http://thesandtrap.com/t/70205/the-principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-by-richard-s-tufts Please buy and read that book.

[iacas]

Is this the PM you were talking about?\

Nope. It was a PM in which a member specifically offered a copy to you. That the thread is dated 2013 shows how long we have been dealing with your specific brand of nonsense… Also, you posted that very same day - 11/8/13 right here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/70920/2013-turkish-airlines-open-discussion/18#post_917481.

The particulars of when you were offered a free copy is still off topic. I was simply pointing out that you have thus far refused to do as requested for someone who is, again, VERY interested in discussing the Rules of Golf.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

I may not have read the principles book, but I have read lots of posts here that talk about it and think I have a pretty good idea what the book is about. It seems to me, that many rules of golf actually violate the basic principle of "play the ball as it lies" in the interest of "playability" While this is probably a good thing, it seems that almost every rule tweak (and they do get changed from time to time) can be justified. I'd be happy to read a free copy. Please PM for the address to send it. Thx

Now that's just rude to ask for a fee copy that has printing costs and mailing charges. I thought you were serious at first.

I'm pretty sure MEFree has been told before - the rules never "violate" the underlying principles.  It is sometimes necessary to modify the pure principle so that play of the game can continue.  The modification is held to the least intrusive level that is both reasonable and possible to promote continuance of play.

The relief rules actually uphold a more basic principle than playing the ball as it lies, by ensuring that the player may never advance the ball other than by means of a stroke.  In the interest of continuing play, they do modify the principle of playing the ball as it lies, but they do so only out of necessity or fairness to the player.

[Hatchman]

I'm pretty sure MEFree has been told before - the rules never "violate" the underlying principles.  It is sometimes necessary to modify the pure principle so that play of the game can continue.  The modification is held to the least intrusive level that is both reasonable and possible to promote continuance of play.   The relief rules actually uphold a more basic principle than playing the ball as it lies, by ensuring that the player may [U] never [/U] advance the ball other than by means of a stroke.  In the interest of continuing play, they do modify the principle of playing the ball as it lies, but they do so only out of necessity or fairness to the player.

Not to go into further debate about this, Mefree shifted to relief to free copy, my comment I misstated by typing "fee". Sorry. I'm satisfied, he may not be.

[ColinL]

I missed that thread that was during my ski season when I don't get to this forum much.

Seeing everyone is getting at you, I may as well add my cent's worth.  If that's you in your avatar, you would do well to focus next season on  separating  your knees.

[rkim291968]

A quick question.  This happened in my last tournament to me.

On a par 3 hole, I hit my tee shot which went into a tall junk.  I hit a provision which landed near green.  My opponent finds the 1st ball  in a place where it is unplayable, and subsequent drops will not improve its lie (it will still be unplayable).    At this point, I called an official for ruling.  I thought I can hit my provision ball as my 4th shot.   But he told me that I have to re-tee with two stroke penalty.  Is that the right call?

[jlbos83]

A quick question.  This happened in my last tournament to me.

On a par 3 hole, I hit my tee shot which went into a tall junk.  I hit a provision which landed near green.  My opponent finds the 1st ball  in a place where it is unplayable, and subsequent drops will not improve its lie (it will still be unplayable).    At this point, I called an official for ruling.  I thought I can hit my provision ball as my 4th shot.   But he told me that I have to re-tee with two stroke penalty.  Is that the right call?

Yep, a provisional is only used if the original is lost or OB.  Once the original is found, other than OB, the provisional is dead.  This prevents you from choosing the option of chossing to use the provisional rather than one of the other unplayable options already knowing where the provisional is.

[sjduffers]

Why would it be two strokes penalty?  Your original tee shot (which was found and in play) is one. The penalty stroke for the unplayable is 2 and the re-tee (re-hit from the previous position as the option chosen under the unplayable) is your 3rd shot.  What am I missing or what did you not say, for example did you pick up the ball and then realized you couldn't use it?