8 Stupidest Rules (golf.com)

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Hmmm - I know that's true in situations we've discussed in the past - where you might have to swing lefty because of a fence, so you're now standing on the cart path, but after you drop you are not, so you don't have to swing lefty anymore - but I don't see how it would apply here.  (I'm sure it does, I'm just missing it)  The wording I'm seeing in those old threads comes from Decision 24-2b/1 and states:

In determining the nearest point of relief accurately it is recommended that the player use the club, address position, direction of play and swing (right or left-handed) that he would have used had the obstruction or condition not been there.

We know that the claim has to be reasonable (see the David Frost thread as an example) and so if you're in the fairway 80 yards away from the green behind a sprinkler head and claim that your play is a putt to get relief, wouldn't the fact that you switched clubs after receiving relief prove that you were lying, thus either negating the relief or requiring you to putt?

That's why I said it made sense to me if the suggested local rule were adopted.  That suggested local reads, in part:

Quote

In addition, if a ball lies through the green and an immovable obstruction on or within two club-lengths of the putting green and within two club-lengths of the ball intervenes on the line of play between the ball and the hole, the player may take relief as follows:

That rule would limit relief to situations where both your ball and the obstruction were relatively close to the green.  

As @iacas mentions, on many of the Scottish links courses, you can putt from a long ways away.  The same holds at many of the courses in the North Carolina Sandhills area.  

[Golfingdad]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

The player could say the lie of the ball makes them want to putt it. That's why I used the example of your ball in a divot hole. From 20 yards out, even, the angle might change enough that you'd have to putt through rough so you decide to pitch instead.

You don't have to play the same shot after you drop that you would have played before.

The only real provision is that you have to play a reasonable shot to begin with (i.e. not a driver on a 90-yard shot because that puts your heels in some casual water).

It wouldn't prove anything all by itself, but in some cases it would be a strong indicator that you lied, sure. The situation is different.

Where do you draw the line, though? 20 yards? And what if your ball is in a divot hole and your putter is the only club you trust to hit it out, and you're adamant about it? Or maybe you suck at 50-yard chips off downslopes, and you drop where it's flatter and can play a chip shot?

And on a lot of Scottish courses you can putt from well off the green.

Fair enough.  Although, I don't think the Scottish course comment is a disqualifier, but rather moreso an argument in favor of allowing this rule.

Maybe a better way to look at it is to compare it to the line-of-sight rule that DJ applied on the 10th hole (I think) to get out of the rough during the last round of the US Open.  I cannot imagine it would get exploited very often, and when it did, we could just look at it, instead of an unethical or shady loophole, like we do of DJs (and other) situations:  It's one of those many situations where knowing the rules can be to your advantage.

[iacas]

Like I said, I'd be fine if the Local Rule was just "the rule." It limits things to being close to the putting green. It limits it to about 4 clublengths from the putting green.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Maybe a better way to look at it is to compare it to the line-of-sight rule that DJ applied on the 10th hole (I think) to get out of the rough during the last round of the US Open.  I cannot imagine it would get exploited very often, and when it did, we could just look at it, instead of an unethical or shady loophole, like we do of DJs (and other) situations:  It's one of those many situations where knowing the rules can be to your advantage.

Why? Just limit it to the Local Rule - within 2 and within 2.

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why? Just limit it to the Local Rule - within 2 and within 2.

I suppose I'd use what you and @DaveP043 said about Scottish and NC sandhill courses as my reasoning ... putting from far away is common.

(At this point, I should reiterate my "official" stance; which is that I'm entirely fine with the current rule, and also with the local rule, and I think neither of them are "stupid.")

[CarlSpackler]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I suppose I'd use what you and @DaveP043 said about Scottish and NC sandhill courses as my reasoning ... putting from far away is common.

(At this point, I should reiterate my "official" stance; which is that I'm entirely fine with the current rule, and also with the local rule, and I think neither of them are "stupid.")

I don't mind either unless there is a sprinkler head ON the putting surface. I don't think I would be playing that course though. You just have to play a different shot.

[GolfLug]

Can't think of anything 'stupid' least of all the stated 8 in the OP. The 5 minute thing sounds like a lot to some but I have always had a bigger issue about it as to how do you MONITOR 5 mins. Who mans the clock and blows the whistle? Enforcement is just too arbitrary.

There was a time when I felt stroke and distance for OBs and no reprieve from a ball in divot in a fairway were the most unfair (or stupid in the context of this thread). But more I play this game seriously more I feel like most modern relief rules actually favor players a bit too much.  

I personally don't think anything 'manmade' should get any special reprieve at all. The whole course is man made. Sprinkler heads, and cart-paths should be provided relief from only if there is a danger of physical harm involved in executing an intended shot. If you don't like it just don't hit it there. Trampled down grass, walked on waste bunkers are man made too. Don't get reprieve from those do we?

 

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

Can't think of anything 'stupid' least of all the stated 8 in the OP. The 5 minute thing sounds like a lot to some but I have always had a bigger issue about it as to how do you MONITOR 5 mins. Who mans the clock and blows the whistle? Enforcement is just too arbitrary.

There was a time when I felt stroke and distance for OBs and no reprieve from a ball in divot in a fairway were the most unfair (or stupid in the context of this thread). But more I play this game seriously more I feel like most modern relief rules actually favor players a bit too much.  

I personally don't think anything 'manmade' should get any special reprieve at all. The whole course is man made. Sprinkler heads, and cart-paths should be provided relief from only if there is a danger of physical harm involved in executing an intended shot. If you don't like it just don't hit it there. Trampled down grass, walked on waste bunkers are man made too. Don't get reprieve from those do we?

I'm with you except the bold.  Sprinkler heads are all over the course, including smack dab in the center of the fairways.  (You can probably lump the 200, 150 and 100 concrete markers you see at many courses in with this group)  Why would you not want to hit the ball in the center of the fairway?

[GolfLug]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I'm with you except the bold.  Sprinkler heads are all over the course, including smack dab in the center of the fairways.  (You can probably lump the 200, 150 and 100 concrete markers you see at many courses in with this group)  Why would you not want to hit the ball in the center of the fairway?

It was my 'golf is not fair when it comes to luck of the draw' rhetoric for wanting relief from sprinkler head for putting ball path relief.

As far as relief in fairway where the club-head can itself hit either cart path or sprinkler head and thus inviting injury, I already conceded they should be taken relief. Absolutely hit it there. All day baby. But sprinkler head relief for putting for ball path relief? Nope. That's too generous in my book.  

[natureboy]

1. 18-2 (Ball at Rest Moved)

I dislike the way the current rule was interpreted where DJ was assessed a penalty and Romain Wattel wasn't. I agree that you're supposed to be careful about not causing your ball to move and thereby affect the lie. I personally think DJ's actions near the ball weren't unreasonable and didn't rise to the level of causation. I'd say find a way to improve the rule (either with a difference 'on the green' or universal).

2. No relief for sand filled divots.

I don't get how this merits special consideration. You expect divots on a golf course. You wouldn't expect a lift and place allowance if your ball happened to land in a naturally bare spot of ground or sand surrounded by grass tufts.

3. Penalizing a player for hitting a flagstick on the ground.

The harsh penalty I guess is to prevent temptation from strategic placement of the flagstick. Having a backstop is a definitely potential advantage in executing the shot. I'm not sure it rises to a 2-stroke level though. Okay with it either way.

4. Dropping the ball.

The intent behind it wasn't stupid. The idea is to create a 'random lie' as if the ball had struck the ground after a normal shot. The fact that scores tend to be lower under 'lift, clean, place' is an indication to me that being able to select your specific lie is an advantage.

5. Stroke and Distance for Lost Balls.

It sucks, but removing it takes away the premium on good ballstriking. Would make it a very different game. If I was introducing someone to the game, though, I wouldn't enforce it on them.

6. Sprinkler head in your putting line.

This one seems obvious to me as the sprinkler head is clearly an immovable obstruction.

7. Five minutes to search for a lost ball.

This makes sense for tournament play maybe. I think it's roughly the expected time to play half a hole. Might be a bit long. Even as it is, I don't think it has to affect pace of play that much. As soon as you can't find it in 30 seconds alert the rest of your group and let the folks behind you play through. I'm half and half on this one.

8. No moving a ball out of a footprint in a bunker.

Sucks to get this condition, but what if it was an animal print? I think the new daily adjustment with HCPs might help adjust for folks who encounter particularly bad course conditions (crappy bunkers and unrepaired green divots) a bit. If it happens to you, you might be more careful to make sure it doesn't happen to someone else.

Edited November 18, 2016 by natureboy

[sjduffers]

I voted 1-2 (the first 2 in my comment below), but perhaps others ought to be examined as well.

The 18-2 rule maybe could be changed so that the player would have to touch the ball in order to be penalized, not just take his stance close by or do a practice stroke within a few inches like DJ did at the US Open.

I'd be Ok with shortening the 5 minutes search too. Usually, if not found within the first 2 minutes, you are not going to find it and if you do (then you have to play it), it's not going to be in a favorable spot to hit from, so a trip back to the tee for an unplayable is the likely outcome anyway.

Another rule I would like examined is the footprint in the bunker. I know a bunker is a hazard and you can't expect the lie to be a nice one, but there is a difference between a rake mark (even a somewhat deep one) and an elephant print from a lazy "golfer". Also, amend the rule to allow throwing the offending party off the course, when you see it being done by someone right in the group in front of you!

I could be convinced to replace drops with placements, but I don't think it's really an issue now.

Edited November 18, 2016 by sjduffers

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, natureboy said:

3. Penalizing a player for hitting a flagstick on the ground.

The harsh penalty I guess is to prevent temptation from strategic placement of the flagstick. Having a backstop is a definitely potential advantage in executing the shot. I'm not sure it rises to a 2-stroke level though. Okay with it either way.

Definitely two stroke level.

What if you could putt a ball off a false front into a water hazard? No problem - just put the flag stick right by the hole and take your two strokes rather than having to take a penalty stroke and re-hit your putt (effectively two strokes).

The potential advantage gained should not outweigh the penalty.

37 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The intent behind it wasn't stupid. The idea is to create a 'random lie' as if the ball had struck the ground after a normal shot. The fact that scores tend to be lower under 'lift, clean, place' is an indication to me that being able to select your specific lie is an advantage.

Perhaps, but they also tend to play lift, clean, and place when the greens are soft (wet). I'd wager at the PGA Tour level that has as much or more to do with it.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Perhaps, but they also tend to play lift, clean, and place when the greens are soft (wet). I'd wager at the PGA Tour level that has as much or more to do with it.

Possibly. I thought softer greens were something PGA pros had a hard time adjusting to since their games are optimized for regular conditions?

[David in FL]

Zero.  I don't consider any of them stupid.

[iacas]

12 hours ago, natureboy said:

Possibly. I thought softer greens were something PGA pros had a hard time adjusting to since their games are optimized for regular conditions?

I don't know why you'd ever think that.

They enjoy being able to fire at pins and stick the ball. My soccer game might be optimized for playing on the tiny goals we play in, but when we get to play on larger ones I score more often and from farther out.

[Fourputt]

1. Ball at Rest Moved  All cases must be treated alike.  This change would take too much responsibility off the player.
2. Relief for sand filled divots. Nope.
3. Penalizing a player for hitting a flagstick on the ground.  If you don't like where he dropped it, then move, or ask him to do so.  I do this often, because I seem to play with a lot of guys who don't seem to understand this simple idea.
4. Placing instead of dropping the ball.  Nope.  The randomness of the drop is essential to the principle of playing as nearly as possible from a lie caused by one's stroke.
5. Stroke only for Lost Balls.  No, no and no again.  How can you determine realistic drop point if you don't know where the ball is?  Sometimes the ball bounces into deep matted grass and you know the general area where it should be fairly closely.  Other times it hits a tree and could literally be anywhere within a 100 yard circle.  You cannot just guess at a dropping point.  There must be a finite reference point to work from or you have just deleted the important principle which ensures that you don't advance the ball without having to make a stroke. 
6. Sprinkler head in your putting line.  Lobby for a local rule, or chip the ball like you would for any other irregularity in the apron.  The apron is not the putting green, so you do not have a "line of putt" to get relief for. 
7. Five minutes to search for a lost ball. This one I would buy into.  I still don't think that the existing rule is "stupid", just excessive in today's game where pace of play is such a concern.
8. No moving a ball out of a footprint in a bunker.  Nope.  You're in a hazard, so hazardous conditions may exist.  Deal with it.

I voted none, because none are "stupid" in my book.

 

[Fourputt]

19 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I suppose I'd use what you and @DaveP043 said about Scottish and NC sandhill courses as my reasoning ... putting from far away is common.

(At this point, I should reiterate my "official" stance; which is that I'm entirely fine with the current rule, and also with the local rule, and I think neither of them are "stupid.")

The player is not entitled to an unobstructed line for putting when the ball is not on the putting green.  There are other options for play in those cases so relief is not, and in my opinion, should not, be guaranteed under the rules.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't know why you'd ever think that.

Something you stated or implied in another thread.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Something you stated or implied in another thread.

Without getting into it too much, you misunderstood.

Back to the topic, please.