USGA/R&A Re-Evaluating All Rules, Top to Bottom

[Asheville]

10 minutes ago, gblackwell said:

I would like them to simplify how to determine when multiple penalties apply. At present, these rules are not only difficult to follow, difficult to find. Right now, it's all couched under the Decision 1-4/12, unless another rule expressly overrides it. 

I'm certain there's room for improvement in terms of findability here and I'm guessing there's room to simplify the whole idea of when multiple penalties apply, but can't say for sure. At minimum, they need to take a hard look I think. Any thoughts?

Edit: Looks like there are multiple decisions in 1-4 that deal with this ... 1-4/12 through the end. Only strengthens my case for simplification (if possible) I think.

Let me guess . . . you've taken the "test." Well, me too, and I've missed some of those questions. 

[xcott]

On 3/18/2016 at 10:00 PM, iacas said:

Probably never gonna happen It violates the principle of playing the course as you find it, and you can't reasonably define "divot hole" in such a way that everyone will apply the definition similarly. How much sand is necessary? What if some sand washes away? What if someone forgets to fill a divot hole?

I think allowing  a player to place a ball within 1 foot of their ball if the entirety of the ball is in the fairway would be fine. This would allow you in many instances to move out of bad fairway spots on munis or out of a divot without defining the divot. 

[iacas]

Just now, xcott said:

I think allowing  a player to place a ball within 1 foot of their ball if the entirety of the ball is in the fairway would be fine. This would allow you in many instances to move out of bad fairway spots on munis or out of a divot without defining the divot. 

Never gonna happen. Nor should it.

Play the ball as it lies.

P.S. The Rules of Golf have no definition for "fairway."

[xcott]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Play the ball as it lies.

 

There are plenty of times you do not play the ball as it lies currently in the rules. 

 

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Never gonna happen. Nor should it.

Play the ball as it lies.

P.S. The Rules of Golf have no definition for "fairway."

I'd add that into the rules of golf then.

[No Mulligans]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

I think allowing  a player to place a ball within 1 foot of their ball if the entirety of the ball is in the fairway would be fine. This would allow you in many instances to move out of bad fairway spots on munis or out of a divot without defining the divot. 

I disagree for these two reasons:

Playing the ball out of difficult lies, including divots, is a fundamental part of golf.

The luck of the bounce is also a fundamental element of golf.

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, xcott said:

There are plenty of times you do not play the ball as it lies currently in the rules.

Not for anything close to what you've proposed.

I second this:

3 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I disagree for these two reasons:

Playing the ball out of difficult lies, including divots, is a fundamental part of golf.

The luck of the bounce is also a fundamental element of golf.

 

[xcott]

Just now, iacas said:

Not for anything close to what you've proposed.

 

"close" is subjective, but we do agree. That you don't always under the current rules have to play the ball as it lies and therefore it would not be a new concept to golf .

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Playing the ball out of difficult lies, including divots, is a fundamental part of golf.

 

In this vein do you agree with the R&A over the USGA on their embedded ball stance?

I play the rules as best as I possibly can. The only one that I don't follow to the letter are ones where I have to go back to the tee box to re-hit. I often play provisionals, but there are many instances where i figured there was no need and found out there was. I feel like it's disrespectful to my playing partners and the groups behind me to return to the tee to hit. Somehow this should be addressed. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, xcott said:

"close" is subjective, but we do agree. That you don't always under the current rules have to play the ball as it lies and therefore it would not be a new concept to golf .

Regardless, it's very simple: they're never going to allow you to move your ball a foot whenever you want because you're in the fairway.

1 hour ago, xcott said:

In this vein do you agree with the R&A over the USGA on their embedded ball stance?

I haven't given it much thought. I'm fine with the rule the way it is now and I'm fine with the local rule when used. If forced, I'd probably side with applying the embedded ball rule through the green.

The embedded ball stuff is not relevant to playing out of divot holes, though.

[xcott]

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

Regardless, it's very simple: they're never going to allow you to move your ball a foot whenever you want because you're in the fairway.

Never is a long time. 

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, xcott said:

Never is a long time. 

For the purposes of practicality I'm defining it as "within our lifetime" and I'm willing to bet just about whatever you want. My daughter should out-live me and she can collect.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, xcott said:

I think allowing  a player to place a ball within 1 foot of their ball if the entirety of the ball is in the fairway would be fine. This would allow you in many instances to move out of bad fairway spots on munis or out of a divot without defining the divot. 

There is nothing in the Rules that assures the player of a good lie when his ball is not in the teeing ground or on the putting green.  Random lies are a part of the game, and what we call "fairway" is seen in the rules as no different from what we call "rough".  It's all through the green, and treatment should be no different.  

That's like complaining that you should get relief from a tree whose branches overhang the fairway, blocking your line to the green and forcing you to shape a shot in a way that you lack the skill to execute.  You either learn to play the shot or you accept that it's going to cost an additional stroke from time to time.  I'd personally rather lie in a divot with clear line of play than be behind a tree and forced to try to play a hook that I'm not capable of playing.

There is nothing in the game of golf that entitles the player to a good lie through the green, nor should there be.

 

[xcott]

Just now, Fourputt said:

That's like complaining that you should get relief from a tree whose branches overhang the fairway, blocking your line to the green and forcing you to shape a shot in a way that you lack the skill to execute

I get your point, but I disagree. It's more like the ground under repair rule. If someone takes a divot, the ground is in an unnatural state. And rather than define a divot, give the player a small area to place the ball in. 

[iacas]

There's nothing unnatural about a divot hole on a golf course.

[Fourputt]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

I get your point, but I disagree. It's more like the ground under repair rule. If someone takes a divot, the ground is in an unnatural state. And rather than define a divot, give the player a small area to place the ball in. 

There is nothing unnatural or abnormal about divot holes on a golf course - quite the opposite.  As for other areas where the turf is imperfect, which aren't always determinable as to whether or not they are divot holes, if it isn't marked then play it as it lies.  

Edit:  Erik beat me by just seconds.

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

I get your point, but I disagree. It's more like the ground under repair rule. If someone takes a divot, the ground is in an unnatural state. And rather than define a divot, give the player a small area to place the ball in. 

Are you sure you're a 27.4 handicap? You can't move the ball for any reason expect as allowed in the ROG.

[xcott]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Are you sure you're a 27.4 handicap? You can't move the ball for any reason expect as allowed in the ROG.

Are you suggesting that not agreeing with a rule means not following it? Are you calling me a dishonest golfer for suggesting a rule change?

 

And suggesting that I'm cheating myself into a 27.4 handicap?!! Yes, my vanity 27.4! HA

Edited June 20, 2016 by xcott

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

Are you suggesting that not agreeing with a rule means not following it? Are you calling me a dishonest golfer for suggesting a rule change?

Ah, okay. Sorry for that.

For some reason, I assumed you were playing by those rules already.

[xcott]

as I've said before the only rule I don't always follow to the letter are ones where I realize once well past the tee that I need to return to the tee. I don't follow that out of respect for my fellow golfers and the pace of play. 

I do like the idea that someone could see a 27.4 handicap and be lie...pfft, nice vanity handicap broseph!