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

[Golfingdad]

31 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.

Interesting.  I have the exact opposite view on this.  You're not being rewarded when you're taking a penalty - you're being penalized.  And as Erik mentioned with free relief, you already have other options so the gamble of the lie makes sense as something that should factor into your decision.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

1. Fellow Player.  I prefer using the present nomenclature to differentiate match and stroke play.

I don't know if that will matter too much: there are still "opponent"s.

The only place it could matter is if your opponent accidentally deflects your ball in motion or something, because they're not an outside agency at that point. I think 11-4 would cover an opponent deflecting your ball.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.

Because you know what casual water means. To someone else a pond could be "casual" water - it's just sitting there, right? "Temporary" water makes more sense.

And really, they could call it "purfloogen" and I wouldn't care - it is just a term. What the term means and how that affects the way we play golf is what matters.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.

I don't see this one surviving. The USGA still likes the One Ball Rule, for example. The R&A particularly likes it - they don't want people playing one ball into the wind and another ball downwind (so I was told - given who said it I'm inclined to believe it, but I understand if you [anyone] don't want to).

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.

I am too, but at the same time… I don't know that it's worth the hassle or complexity. Hell, rule 20 is all about dropping and placing. There's an entire rule in the book for something that shouldn't really need an entire rule. It's confusing to people.

So while I agree with you that we're giving up something here, I don't think it violates the Principles, and I do think there's a good amount to be gained here in simplicity and other things.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.

The R&A opposes this one. The USGA would have this as a rule now if they could.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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!

Read rule 19. Specifically 19-3. Doesn't that address your outrage?

I'm pretty sure all rule 21 says is that you have the option of taking stroke and distance, just as you do now.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

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.

Let's hear 'em.

[Missouri Swede]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't see this one surviving. The USGA still likes the One Ball Rule, for example. The R&A particularly likes it - they don't want people playing one ball into the wind and another ball downwind (so I was told - given who said it I'm inclined to believe it, but I understand if you [anyone] don't want to).

You're referring to the CoC, right?  Since right now the RoG allow us to switch balls between holes, as I understand it.

Or are you implying that they are considering making One Ball an actual Rule?

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Interesting.  I have the exact opposite view on this.  You're not being rewarded when you're taking a penalty - you're being penalized.  And as Erik mentioned with free relief, you already have other options so the gamble of the lie makes sense as something that should factor into your decision.

But you are being penalized for doing something that is against the rules, or for hitting your ball into a place where it doesn't belong.  The stroke, plus the randomness of the drop, ensures that the player doesn't derive some benefit from that mistake.  I don't see it as harsh at all.  It only ensures that, at the very least, you don't gain an advantage over your opponent or fellow competitor for your foul.  Getting to place the ball in a perfect lie after declaring the ball unplayable could put you in exactly that position.  

Here you are unplayable, you measure, place on a tuft of grass, and play a 3W to the green, while your companion has to play from a random lie which may not allow him a perfect situation for his 3W.  He may not even be able to play a wood at all.  Now he could consider declaring an unplayable too, just to keep pace, even though his ball is technically playable.  We have created a situation where players may be lifting balls unnecessarily because they might actually be better off with a wood from that perfectly placed lie than by playing an iron from a so-so lie.  This goes directly against the principle of playing the ball as it lies and accepting the random lie earned by your stroke.

There may be times when the penalty seems to exceed any possible advantage, but the rules are written to address the worst case, not the best.  I see it as incentive not to run afoul of the rules if at all possible.

 

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know if that will matter too much: there are still "opponent"s.

The only place it could matter is if your opponent accidentally deflects your ball in motion or something, because they're not an outside agency at that point. I think 11-4 would cover an opponent deflecting your ball.

This doesn't simplify, it complicates the issue.  If I read it right, someone you are playing with can be an opponent, a fellow player, and an outside agency all at the same time (and there is no specific term for a player in a stroke competition, while opponent is still a match term).  Makes no sense at all to me.  The rules need properly differentiated terminology so that situations and rulings can be resolved based on a precise description of what happened, where it happened, and who was involved.  Proper interpretation of the rules requires accurate terminology, and this ain't it.

Quote

Because you know what casual water means. To someone else a pond could be "casual" water - it's just sitting there, right? "Temporary" water makes more sense.

And really, they could call it "purfloogen" and I wouldn't care - it is just a term. What the term means and how that affects the way we play golf is what matters.

So why change it at all?  It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to understand the concept, even if it's still called casual water.  This is just change for the sake of change, doesn't make anything simpler.

 

Quote

I am too, but at the same time… I don't know that it's worth the hassle or complexity. Hell, rule 20 is all about dropping and placing. There's an entire rule in the book for something that shouldn't really need an entire rule. It's confusing to people.

So while I agree with you that we're giving up something here, I don't think it violates the Principles, and I do think there's a good amount to be gained here in simplicity and other things.

I think they can find a way to simplify it without making it unrecognizable.   

 

Quote

The R&A opposes this one. The USGA would have this as a rule now if they could.

My hope is that the R&A will come around.  Any serious revamping of the rules needs this.

 

Quote

Read rule 19. Specifically 19-3. Doesn't that address your outrage?

I'm pretty sure all rule 21 says is that you have the option of taking stroke and distance, just as you do now.

I can't see any reason for including it in any rule involving stroke and distance.  Nobody in his right mind is going to take a penalty for that, so why complicate the issue?  If the relief rule for obstructions, etc, doesn't cover all possible forms of relief without penalty, then the rule isn't workable.

Quote

Let's hear 'em.

I'd have to actually attempt to play under those rules for a while to see what shakes out on the course.  I'm not that good at abstracting scenarios.

[Golfingdad]

20 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

But you are being penalized for doing something that is against the rules, or for hitting your ball into a place where it doesn't belong.  The stroke, plus the randomness of the drop, ensures that the player doesn't derive some benefit from that mistake.  I don't see it as harsh at all.  It only ensures that, at the very least, you don't gain an advantage over your opponent or fellow competitor for your foul.  Getting to place the ball in a perfect lie after declaring the ball unplayable could put you in exactly that position.  

Here you are unplayable, you measure, place on a tuft of grass, and play a 3W to the green, while your companion has to play from a random lie which may not allow him a perfect situation for his 3W.  He may not even be able to play a wood at all.  Now he could consider declaring an unplayable too, just to keep pace, even though his ball is technically playable.  We have created a situation where players may be lifting balls unnecessarily because they might actually be better off with a wood from that perfectly placed lie than by playing an iron from a so-so lie.  This goes directly against the principle of playing the ball as it lies and accepting the random lie earned by your stroke.

There may be times when the penalty seems to exceed any possible advantage, but the rules are written to address the worst case, not the best.  I see it as incentive not to run afoul of the rules if at all possible.

I dunno.  I can't think of a scenario where I would be able and willing to play my ball as it lied because of the uncertainty of a drop, yet would choose to take an unplayable penalty if I could place it.  That seems like a stretch.

However, your reasoning here is also exactly why I think they should keep the drop pin place for free drops, and why I'm surprised that you'd be OK with it.  Specifically this:

20 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

This goes directly against the principle of playing the ball as it lies and accepting the random lie earned by your stroke.

Imagine the US Open last year; DJ on the 10th hole where he was fortunate enough to have an NPR within 2 club lengths of the neighboring fairway and had the TV tower in his line of sight.  What if his NPR was still in the rough?  Wouldn't you want him to be required to drop if he chose to take relief?  That would seem cheap to me if he were able to get a free drop AND tee it up somehow to get  a "good" lie in the rough.

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

You're referring to the CoC, right?  Since right now the RoG allow us to switch balls between holes, as I understand it.

Or are you implying that they are considering making One Ball an actual Rule?

Yes, the CoC. They're not gonna make the One Ball Rule an actual full-on Rule of Golf. That wouldn't make any sense for them to do at this point.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The stroke, plus the randomness of the drop, ensures that the player doesn't derive some benefit from that mistake. I don't see it as harsh at all.

You may have to learn to get over it. The complexity may not be judged to be worth a tiny bit of randomness.

And as @Golfingdad and I said: it makes more sense the other way where you're getting something free. It makes less sense that you can pay a penalty and still have your ball bounce back into the same unplayable lie (or whatever). It's not like all unplayable lies are horribly bad places where you should never hit your ball - some are one foot from a great lie.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Getting to place the ball in a perfect lie after declaring the ball unplayable could put you in exactly that position.

If you take an unplayable you're not guaranteed a perfect lie if you place. You might still be in the tall grass near a bunch of bushes or whatever. The ball's not going to magically hover, and you don't get to place your ball on a tee or something.

Again, I think they see the complexity of dropping and re-dropping as potentially not worth the "randomness" idea. It's not truly random anyway - players try to drop in certain spots. They already favor certain areas over others. This just slightly narrows it a bit further (while also eliminating the likelihood of a ball plugging).

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

We have created a situation where players may be lifting balls unnecessarily because they might actually be better off with a wood from that perfectly placed lie than by playing an iron from a so-so lie.  This goes directly against the principle of playing the ball as it lies and accepting the random lie earned by your stroke.

No. If it was against the principle of playing it as it lies we wouldn't allow people to take an unplayable anywhere they want on the golf course right now (except in a water hazard).

And if you can get an iron on it and advance it, that's worth more than one shot. Even a chip-out slightly advancing the ball leaving a shorter second shot is a bigger advantage than a penalty stroke.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I see it as incentive not to run afoul of the rules if at all possible.

Declaring your ball unplayable is not "running afoul of the rules."

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

This doesn't simplify, it complicates the issue.  If I read it right, someone you are playing with can be an opponent, a fellow player, and an outside agency all at the same time (and there is no specific term for a player in a stroke competition, while opponent is still a match term).  Makes no sense at all to me.  The rules need properly differentiated terminology so that situations and rulings can be resolved based on a precise description of what happened, where it happened, and who was involved.  Proper interpretation of the rules requires accurate terminology, and this ain't it.

I haven't read them fully, so you may be right, but there are rarely times when your fellow competitors are not also simply outside agencies, so… I don't think it complicates things much at all.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

So why change it at all?  It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to understand the concept, even if it's still called casual water.  This is just change for the sake of change, doesn't make anything simpler.

Because "temporary water" makes more sense. If I show my wife a puddle after a rain storm, she might never describe it as "casual." She might readily describe it as "temporary."

It's not change for the sake of change. It's change for the sake of clarity.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I think they can find a way to simplify it without making it unrecognizable.

That doesn't address anything I said there. I have not yet seen anything in Code Two that violates the principles.

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I can't see any reason for including it in any rule involving stroke and distance.  Nobody in his right mind is going to take a penalty for that, so why complicate the issue?  If the relief rule for obstructions, etc, doesn't cover all possible forms of relief without penalty, then the rule isn't workable.

It's not complicating anything. It's telling you that you can take stroke and distance whenever you want, basically. Just like the current rules tell you that you can do.

It also covers ball lost or OB.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

That's a very good point. That scenario almost seems to violate Tufts principle of the penalty shouldn't be less than the potential advantage. An automatic loss of hole kind of assumes an average / par score by the opponent.

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

If you take an unplayable you're not guaranteed a perfect lie if you place. You might still be in the tall grass near a bunch of bushes or whatever. The ball's not going to magically hover, and you don't get to place your ball on a tee or something.

Again, I think they see the complexity of dropping and re-dropping as potentially not worth the "randomness" idea.

If it was against the principle of playing it as it lies we wouldn't allow people to take an unplayable anywhere they want on the golf course right now (except in a water hazard).

I agree that the unplayable rule was one of the biggest and potentially most generous of the rule changes from the original strict 'play it as it lies' and dropping vs. placing is relative small potatoes.

If anyone wanted, they could do some tournament testing of individual proposed rule changes as conditions of competition to see any effect on scores. Or they could evaluate proximity differences for placed vs. 'random' dropped balls from various types of lie to see likely SG effect.

---

 

I'm wondering why this discussion of the proposed 'simple rules' has shifted to the USGA/R&A thread.

Do you know that the ruling bodies are specifically looking at these proposed changes or they are close enough to what's being discussed by the rulesmakers that they are practically equivalent?

Edited January 20, 2017 by natureboy

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's a very good point. That scenario almost seems to violate Tufts principle of the penalty shouldn't be less than the potential advantage. An automatic loss of hole kind of assumes an average / par score by the opponent.

Not sure what you mean. Loss of hole is not going to be less than the potential advantage.

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm wondering why this discussion of the proposed 'simple rules' has shifted to the USGA/R&A thread.

These are highly likely to be the basis for the new RoG.

[natureboy]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not sure what you mean. Loss of hole is not going to be less than the potential advantage.

These are highly likely to be the basis for the new RoG.

Tufts doesn't state it directly but I see that principle about establishing a rough 'balance point' erring on the side of more penal than the potential advantage.

Implicit in this principle, to me anyway is that there is also a ceiling. For example most penalties don't result in automatic disqualification. There aren't any penalties worth 3, 4, or 5 strokes (though I know individual penalties can add up).

Your scenario highlights how the penalty in stroke play kind of 'goes to 11' right away assuming the opponent is always scoring near par and a single stroke always matters for the outcome of the hole. That exceeds what I see as the implied 'ceiling'.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Tufts doesn't state it directly but I see that principle about establishing a rough 'balance point' erring on the side of more penal than the potential advantage.

Implicit in this principle, to me anyway is that there is also a ceiling. For example most penalties don't result in automatic disqualification. There aren't any penalties worth 3, 4, or 5 strokes (though I know individual penalties can add up).

Your scenario highlights how the penalty in stroke play kind of 'goes to 11' right away assuming the opponent is always scoring near par and a single stroke always matters for the outcome of the hole. That exceeds what I see as the implied 'ceiling'.

I don't agree. Loss of hole is guaranteed to be higher than any potential advantage gained. That's what the principle is, and this adheres to it.

Let's definitely not hyper-focus on this one little piece.

[iacas]

Saw this graphic on Morning Drive this morning.

From what I've heard (and posted here) they're going to be more aggressive than this.

For example, why "emphasize" red stakes when you can just make all water hazards the same. "Emphasizing" red stakes feels like a half measure to me, and I see no point in half measures.

[Golfingdad]

The wording on the drop ... "allowing [it] from any height" seems a bit strange to me.  Why aren't they just saying they'll allow placing?  Unless "any height" has a lower limit of above the ground or something.

[phillyk]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The wording on the drop ... "allowing [it] from any height" seems a bit strange to me.  Why aren't they just saying they'll allow placing?  Unless "any height" has a lower limit of above the ground or something.

I wonder if its meant to differentiate between terrain or slope of ground.  Like how you have to drop 2 times before placing a ball if it keeps rolling away.  So, maybe it's a per situation thing? But that would still make it complicated.  If they are changing this drop, they should just go all the way to placing.  There isn't a good in between that I can think of right now.

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The wording on the drop ... "allowing [it] from any height" seems a bit strange to me.  Why aren't they just saying they'll allow placing?  Unless "any height" has a lower limit of above the ground or something.

I agree.  I do think that allowing a range, such as waist to head high, would help decrease arguments about whether a specific drop was legal, but I'd hate to see a drop from one inch high be acceptable.

I'll be concerned about pace of play issues if repair of spike marks becomes acceptable.  

I'll be interested to see what type of measure will be used if club-lengths is no longer the standard.  

While I'd love for the rules to be shortened and simplified, I'm not sure I really want to see major changes that decrease the impact of a violation on a player, that effectively make the game "easier".  I'll be just as curmudgeonly as Mr. Tufts was back in 1950, when he wrote an article asking whether golf was getting "soft" when the rules were changed to allow a player to lift and clean his ball any time it was on the putting green.  Anyway, speculation is really not all that useful, I'll wait to do most of my complaining once I see the final set of revised rules.

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The wording on the drop ... "allowing [it] from any height" seems a bit strange to me.  Why aren't they just saying they'll allow placing?  Unless "any height" has a lower limit of above the ground or something.

I agree. Again, feels like a half measure. Changing the drop height would not radically alter the rules… rule 20 would still have to exist, very similar to how it is now, etc.

Just eliminate dropping altogether if that's the way you want to go.

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree.  I do think that allowing a range, such as waist to head high, would help decrease arguments about whether a specific drop was legal, but I'd hate to see a drop from one inch high be acceptable.

How often are there "arguments" about this?

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'll be concerned about pace of play issues if repair of spike marks becomes acceptable.

I'm not too worried about it for the average golfer… I don't really remember seeing spike marks much lately. @DaveP043, you were playing back in the metal spike era, as was I. The change, overnight, was remarkable. Spike marks just don't really exist anymore.

If the new rules are going to be as radical as I think they will be, maybe they'll just allow repairing any and all damage to the putting green so long as you don't test the surface (i.e. like the roughening or scraping the grass, etc.). That would include spike marks and ball marks. And holes made by someone dropping the end of the flag. Or slamming a club down. Etc.

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'll be interested to see what type of measure will be used if club-lengths is no longer the standard.

Yeah that makes little sense. I can see placing at the NPR rather than NPR+1 clublength, but what about dropping (or placing) away from a WH or an unplayable lie?

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

While I'd love for the rules to be shortened and simplified, I'm not sure I really want to see major changes that decrease the impact of a violation on a player, that effectively make the game "easier".  I'll be just as curmudgeonly as Mr. Tufts was back in 1950, when he wrote an article asking whether golf was getting "soft" when the rules were changed to allow a player to lift and clean his ball any time it was on the putting green.  Anyway, speculation is really not all that useful, I'll wait to do most of my complaining once I see the final set of revised rules.

Where's the fun in that?

Read up on Code Two. From what I was told it's going to heavily inform the new rules.

[Golfingdad]

44 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'll be interested to see what type of measure will be used if club-lengths is no longer the standard.

My first thought was they'd go to some standard measurement, I.e. "5 feet", however that complicates things more because it either requires we carry around tape measures or opens up a can of worms if we're allowed to estimate.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

My first thought was they'd go to some standard measurement, I.e. "5 feet", however that complicates things more because it either requires we carry around tape measures or opens up a can of worms if we're allowed to estimate.

That was my thought, that a clublength was established as the standard measurement because every single golfer carries the equipment required to measure.  For anything other than placing the ball at a specific location, some type of measurement will be required.  If that measurement is in inches, feet, meters, whatever, you'd really need to carry a tape measure.  

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

My first thought was they'd go to some standard measurement, I.e. "5 feet", however that complicates things more because it either requires we carry around tape measures or opens up a can of worms if we're allowed to estimate.

I think there's almost no chance of using a standard measurement like feet, inches, meters, etc.