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

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, curitiba said:

But again. let's wait and see.  Then you can buy me a nice cold beer when the flagstick and the 5 minute rule will be changed!

I already said I don't care about the five minute rule. Three minutes, two minutes… those are fine. They don't change the way golf is played like the flagstick thing.

And I don't think we'll be seeing free drops from divot holes in the fairway any time soon.

Also, again, you said you wished the flagstick rule would be changed in your earlier post. You didn't imply any actual inside knowledge.

How are things in Brazil now that the Olympics are gone?

[DrvFrShow]

Flagstick - it would not speed up play. When people are playing in a group they remove the flagstick when they're putting. When they're playing single, no one really cares, I see singles leaving the flagstick in all the time - people putt the ball and if they lay up about a foot away, they usually pick up and move on.

Divot holes - if it's competition, it's one thing. If it's a casual game people move their ball out of them already. The rule won't change. I've been playing for 4 years and have ended up in a divot hole twice. I even hit a decent shot once out of it. I sucked the other time. Life goes on. 

[iacas]

So the latest scuttlebutt…

• All water hazards will be laterals
• Bunkers will be treated very differently
• The rules will be "unrecognizable"
• The rules will be 1/2 as long as they are now. May have meant Decisions book.
• Principles all preserved (inasmuch as the LR for 18-2 does now).
• Published for comment this year. Hopefully early.
• Highly unlikely to be implemented for 2018.

I'll see what else I can dig up.

[phillyk]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

So the latest scuttlebutt…

• All water hazards will be laterals
• Bunkers will be treated very differently
• The rules will be "unrecognizable"
• The rules will be 1/2 as long as they are now. May have meant Decisions book.
• Principles all preserved (inasmuch as the LR for 18-2 does now).
• Published for comment this year. Hopefully early.
• Highly unlikely to be implemented for 2018.

I'll see what else I can dig up.

I'm interested to see what the treating bunkers differently means.  As in being able to ground club, not rake, idk what.

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

So the latest scuttlebutt…

• All water hazards will be laterals

Hmm, not sure I like that one. I think non-lateral water hazards have their place. 

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

• Bunkers will be treated very differently

Only a few things I could think of. One is allowing grounding the club. The other would be allowing golfers to drop outside the bunker, keeping the point of where the ball would be between you and the hole, with one stroke penalty. 

Besides that, I really can't think much anything else. 

 

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Hmm, not sure I like that one. I think non-lateral water hazards have their place.

Why? I'm fine with treating all water hazards the same.

Also heard:

• One stroke penalties almost exclusively. Not sure about diminished loss of hole in match play.
• Lots more placing instead of dropping.
• Kinder, gentler re:accidents and things of that nature. Like the LR. Meh. :-/
• More reliance on player integrity.
• DMDs may be an explicit rule.
• Could look very similar to http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwo.html.
• Simpler, shorter Rules book.

Don't take any as gospel. Just the latest rumors… albeit from some good sources I'll never name.

I don't think you're going to be able to ground your club in bunkers. Too easy to improve your lie.

Edit: but who knows. The PGA at Kiawah Island was interesting.

[Rulesman]

Regression from bunkers al la 26-2a ?

It almost made it about 10 years ago.

 

And placing rather than dropping is making ripples.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Rulesman

[iacas]

I'm going to have to spend more time reading Code Two (ignoring the "points" nonsense).

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

• The rules will be 1/2 as long as they are now. May have meant Decisions book.
• Principles all preserved (inasmuch as the LR for 18-2 does now).

If they can achieve these two things, they're clearly on the right track.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Bunkers will be treated very differently

Interesting.  I could see them being "combined" with the rules for water hazards...(ie, allowing drop with penalty at point of entry).  Could also be a way to simplify the rules: a hazard is a hazard; bunkers are just (much) easier to play from than water, but the same relief options exist.

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

• Kinder, gentler re:accidents and things of that nature. Like the LR. Meh. :-/
• More reliance on player integrity.

It seems like this has the potential to "codify" bad behavior that already occurs (ie, players thinking that if an infraction didn't give them an "advantage", there's no need to penalize themselves).  Hopefully not.

42 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

And placing rather than dropping is making ripples.

Figuratively speaking, of course! 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

• All water hazards will be laterals

I'll clarify that…

• They'll all be treated the same.
• The two club-length option will exist for all.
• The "opposite margin of the hazard equidistant…" option is likely to go away.

I didn't mean to imply that they'll all be "lateral" because calling them "lateral" makes no sense when you can just call them "water hazards."

More discussion taking place here too specifically about the Code Two from SimpleGolfRules.com:

[Fourputt]

On 1/15/2017 at 0:12 PM, saevel25 said:

Hmm, not sure I like that one. I think non-lateral water hazards have their place. 

Only a few things I could think of. One is allowing grounding the club. The other would be allowing golfers to drop outside the bunker, keeping the point of where the ball would be between you and the hole, with one stroke penalty. 

Besides that, I really can't think much anything else. 

 

You will still have the same options for a "yellow" water hazard, just the additional option of 2 club lengths if it's appropriate.  I've had times when the 2 clublength option would have given me the chance to minimize or eliminate the impact of tree at the edge of the hazard, where dropping back on a line put the tree directly in my path, forcing me to either go back a long way, or to waste a stroke pitching out.  The same situation with a "red" hazard has always given us that option.  

I've often wondered why they didn't do away with the differentiation.

Another change I'd like to see when taking a stroke and distance penalty is being able to drop in a 2 clublength arc instead of having to drop "as near as possible" to the original spot.  That would mostly eliminate the chance of being forced to drop in your own divot.  (This would have had the effect of no penalty under Rule 20 for Tiger on #15 at the Masters.)

[Fourputt]

I've read through part of Code 2, and I've already got a good list to comment on - I'm off now to wash my truck while it's fairly warm out.  

When I finish I'll post with my thoughts and concerns.  Besides the point system (which sucks, IMHO), I see some other issues, and I'm only up to Rule 12.  More to come.... 

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Another change I'd like to see when taking a stroke and distance penalty is being able to drop in a 2 clublength arc instead of having to drop "as near as possible" to the original spot.  That would mostly eliminate the chance of being forced to drop in your own divot.  (This would have had the effect of no penalty under Rule 20 for Tiger on #15 at the Masters.)

Your divot should be closer to the hole. So it really shouldn't be an issue as that'd be a re-drop.

---

@Fourputt have you seen what I said above about all the major changes along the lines of Code Two.

[iacas]

Ignore the point system. Pretend they'll modify them enough to allow the same scoring we have now.

[Fourputt]

Just now, iacas said:

Your divot should be closer to the hole. So it really shouldn't be an issue as that'd be a re-drop.

---

@Fourputt have you seen what I said above about all the major changes along the lines of Code Two.

You haven't seen some of my divots... .  I'll comment on the rest later.

[Fourputt]

Okay... here goes nothing:

Definitions:  

1. Fellow Player.  I prefer using the present nomenclature to differentiate match and stroke play.  Also, by this definition, an opponent can also be a fellow player, a notion that I find confusing.  The current format uses "player" as the individual whose ball is involved, "opponent" as a member of the opposing side in a match, fellow competitor as the other members of the "player's" group in a stroke competition, and outside agency for anyone else the player may encounter.  It doesn't need to be simplified.  If anything, attempting to do so just complicates things.
2. Standard Relief - May have some merit after a little refining.
3. Temporary water - Why?  What is the reason for simply changing the name.  And in my opinion it's misleading.  I've seen "casual water" that was not particularly temporary, but was still not a water hazard.

Now to the Principles:

Rule 12:  Substituted ball - allows for substitution any time a ball is lifted.  That means a player could change to a "putting ball" on the green.  Or in some cases change to a "spin" ball for approach, even if the lifting is done only to relieve interference with another player's stroke.  Strongly disagree with this.  I goes in the face of the principle of playing one's ball from the tee to the hole, which infers that, when possible, the same ball is used all the way.

17. (and any other hole where this applies) - I'm opposed to placing the ball when the exact spot is not known.  I'm a fan of the relative randomness of lies achieved in dropping.  The player is entitled to the lie his stroke gave him.  He is not entitled to a better lie just because he gets to lift or substitute a ball.  My only exception to the current method is if a player must drop in a bunker - in only this case, the ball should be placed so as not to unduly penalize the player (who is already taking a penalty stroke) with a "fried egg" lie.

20. Embedded ball - Through the green is a better idea than the current rule.  I've long argued for this change.  Relief for aeration holes is also a good idea.  It's in common usage in casual play, and even in tournaments when applicable.

21. I would be livid if I had to take a stroke and distance penalty for a ball that is known to be lost in GUR or an obstruction, etc.  Bad idea!

More may come up in discussion, but these are the ones that screamed at me just from a quick reading.  

I haven't taken enough time to say that I've actually studied this code.  There are some that I would have to see in action on the course, but I just feel that there are some that I haven't mentioned which would find issues when it comes to actual play - cases where similar situations would result in very different treatment due to oversimplification.

[Fourputt]

On 1/15/2017 at 11:52 AM, iacas said:

So the latest scuttlebutt…

• All water hazards will be laterals
• Bunkers will be treated very differently
• The rules will be "unrecognizable"
• The rules will be 1/2 as long as they are now. May have meant Decisions book.
• Principles all preserved (inasmuch as the LR for 18-2 does now).
• Published for comment this year. Hopefully early.
• Highly unlikely to be implemented for 2018.

I'll see what else I can dig up.

Water hazards treated the same... good plan.  
I'll wait and see what the bunker treatment is.
Rules "unrecognizable"?  Not sure what that means, but I admit that it makes me uncomfortable.
Have to wait and see if they manage to preserve the principles.

On 1/15/2017 at 0:27 PM, iacas said:

Why? I'm fine with treating all water hazards the same.

Also heard:

• One stroke penalties almost exclusively. Not sure about diminished loss of hole in match play.
• Lots more placing instead of dropping.
• Kinder, gentler re:accidents and things of that nature. Like the LR. Meh. :-/
• More reliance on player integrity.
• DMDs may be an explicit rule.
• Could look very similar to http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwo.html.
• Simpler, shorter Rules book.

Don't take any as gospel. Just the latest rumors… albeit from some good sources I'll never name.

I don't think you're going to be able to ground your club in bunkers. Too easy to improve your lie.

Edit: but who knows. The PGA at Kiawah Island was interesting.

Don't like expanding the one stroke penalty to areas where there are now 2 strokes.  The gradation is there for equity, and if the rules depart from equity, then all bets are off.  I'm guessing that the loss of hole penalties will remain pretty much the same, or match play will be almost unrecognizable.  Too easy for a player to just breach a rule, take the one stroke, and play on with a good chance to save the hole when now he would lose the hole the moment he committed the foul.

Not in favor of placing instead of dropping when the exact spot is not known.  Too much potential to reward a player for being forced under penalty to take a drop.  I would not be totally opposed to this when taking relief without penalty.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Rules "unrecognizable"?  Not sure what that means, but I admit that it makes me uncomfortable.

Mainly:

• the thickness
• the order of the rules
• A few policies (like dropping largely going away, maybe?)

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Have to wait and see if they manage to preserve the principles.

I don't think that's ever really going away.

For example even if the 18-2 Local Rule is adopted everywhere I don't think that's going against the Principles. I don't like it, and I think a ball in play should be treated with some respect, but I can kinda see the point of not punishing careless things. I don't like it, but I get their point. For it to be a truly bad law someone would have to "accidentally" move their ball frequently so that they can "replace" it frequently.

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Don't like expanding the one stroke penalty to areas where there are now 2 strokes. The gradation is there for equity, and if the rules depart from equity, then all bets are off.

Name a case. Because stroke and distance is still technically a one-stroke penalty, so that's not going away.

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I'm guessing that the loss of hole penalties will remain pretty much the same, or match play will be almost unrecognizable.

Maybe. But why not just make things penalty strokes? Why if you touch the ground in a bunker now is it a penalty in stroke play, but even if your opponent has taken 10 strokes on the hole and you've taken 1, you lose the hole? i think more strokes can be applied and "loss of hole" penalties can be used only in the most extreme of cases. I've never really cared for all the loss of hole penalties.

If things are just the same # of strokes in match and stroke play, that would simplify things a bit.

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Too easy for a player to just breach a rule, take the one stroke, and play on with a good chance to save the hole when now he would lose the hole the moment he committed the foul.

If it's only one stroke (or even two) in stroke play, why should it be loss of hole in match play?

I disagree with the current rules on this one, TBH.

Heck, right now in match play if both players play a wrong ball, and they notice at the green, the first player who played the wrong ball loses the hole, even though both committed the same infraction.

17 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Not in favor of placing instead of dropping when the exact spot is not known. Too much potential to reward a player for being forced under penalty to take a drop. I would not be totally opposed to this when taking relief without penalty.

I actually think that placing makes more sense, from a "fairness" point of view, when you're already taking the penalty. If you're getting a free drop you already have the advantage of two options: play it as it lies or get a somewhat random lie when you drop.

But anyway, I think it can speed play, and people don't understand rule 20 very well at all as it is - they think if the ball bounces forward at all they have to re-drop, they don't understand that as soon as you drop the ball is in play, even if your other ball is still sitting on the cart path or you've dropped in a completely wrong place, etc.

So I can see their rationale for that. There's nothing in Tufts book that says you have to drop after you take relief or a penalty or whatever. It would just say that you can't play from a place closer to the hole than your last stroke left you (that would be advancing your ball by means other than a stroke).