8 Stupidest Rules (golf.com)

[SG11118]

I think #1 is difficult to fairly enforce from golfer to golfer the way it is written, but wouldn't necessarily call it totally stupid.  

Not sure what is meant with #4?  I think balls should be dropped as the rules currently mandate it.  If there was an easy way to choose a uniform distance for "clublength" when used in measuring the drop area, I'd likely be for it as a change.  However probably not worth complicating the rules over, so not stupid.

#7 is at least kind of stupid.  I don't believe the rules say anything about needing a watch to play golf.  Is a person supposed to manually count off time as they look if they don't have a watch?  I have never once seen a golfer look at their watch or start a timer when they start to look for a ball.  Golfers generally are optimistic they'll find a ball, so why should they even worry about starting the clock on their search?  Should the rules mandate that everyone carries a watch and starts the clock as soon as they get to the point where they think their ball should be?  Five minutes is a long time.  Should it be less?  There are times when a ball is difficult to find in the fairway or light rough - particularly when there are leaves.  When a person keeps their ball in play, I have some problem with the rules being tough on the golfer just because their ball may have landed someplace out of the norm where it isn't as easy to see.  I wouldn't have a problem with a person taking 5 minutes one time in their round, but when the same person takes 5 minutes multiple times in their round, it really isn't fair to the rest of the course.  I guess if I was changing the rule, I'd make it clear how the timing is meant to happen, and give each golfer one time per round to take between 2.5 and 5 minutes.  After that the limit is 2.5 minutes per search.

I have no problems with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8.  I'll say 1 and 7 each get a partial stupid score.

[jsgolfer]

I voted 1-2 but would've added that an unplayable lie in a sand trap should be treated just like any other unplayable lie or since it is a hazard, treat it just like any other hazard.  Same drop rules.

But I'm biased, as our fairway bunkers have really soft sand, especially along the top and I've had several plugged balls into the sides of the bunker over the last year.  Taking an unplayable and dropping in the bunker actually gives you another plugged lie, as the sand is really soft and the ball sinks into the sand, thus penalizing you again.  

[DrvFrShow]

There are dumber rules than those. I've yet to run across them while playing, but I've read them. It's the stuff that can happen that can absolutely ruin your day because someone was a pig.

[Papa Steve 55]

I'll hold off on saying that you cant tamp down a spike mark on the green is the stupidest until somebody can explain the reasoning of it to me.

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, Papa Steve 55 said:

I'll hold off on saying that you cant tamp down a spike mark on the green is the stupidest until somebody can explain the reasoning of it to me.

How about… "pace of play concerns"?

[saevel25]

I voted 1-2. I pretty much agree with @iacas's first post. 

[David in FL]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

How about… "pace of play concerns"?

I don't understand this?  

Surely you're not saying that the reason that we're not allowed to tap down a spike mark is that doing so would somehow slow down pace of play, are you?

[saevel25]

28 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I don't understand this?  

Surely you're not saying that the reason that we're not allowed to tap down a spike mark is that doing so would somehow slow down pace of play, are you?

It might not be the only reason. 

Another issue might be that you can't tell the difference between a spike mark and a natural imperfection. Golf has routinely given benefit of the doubt to playing the course as it is over assuming some imperfection was man made. Since golfers play the course, anything they do to the course makes it part of the course anyways. 

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

It might not be the only reason. 

Another issue might be that you can't tell the difference between a spike mark and a natural imperfection. Golf has routinely given benefit of the doubt to playing the course as it is over assuming some imperfection was man made. Since golfers play the course, anything they do to the course makes it part of the course anyways. 

It's not even a reason....   

We already allow for ball marks to be repaired on the green, and for the ball to be marked and lifted, recognizing that the putting green is a distinct and unique part of the course.  I see repairing spike marks in the same vein.  It may be the only rule in golf that I'd happily lobby to change.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

It's not even a reason....   

Yes it is.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

We already allow for ball marks to be repaired on the green, and for the ball to be marked and lifted, recognizing that the putting green is a distinct and unique part of the course.  I see repairing spike marks in the same vein.  It may be the only rule in golf that I'd happily lobby to change.

Yet, I've noticed PGA tour players ask their playing partners to check to see if a pitch mark is a pitch mark to be fixed. This tells me, that they do not get free reign to even fix pitch marks. They need to have a very strong certainty that they are actually fixing a pitch mark. 

Do they let you mark and lift on the green, sure. You still can not say for certain what your fixing is a spike mark and not just a natural occurring imperfection. 

Heck, spike marks are naturally occurring since a putting green is used by people wearing golf shoes. If you don't want pitch marks then get the first tee time after they rolled the greens. 

[David in FL]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes it is.

Ok, I'll bite.  How does tapping down a spike mark, or even two, constitute a pace of play issue, while repairing a ball mark, which takes far longer, does not.

Come on.  If there's a good argument against allowing for the repair of spike marks, in the same manner as the repair of ball marks, then I'm happy to listen to it, but pace of play isn't it.

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yet, I've noticed PGA tour players ask their playing partners to check to see if a pitch mark is a pitch mark to be fixed. This tells me, that they do not get free reign to even fix pitch marks. They need to have a very strong certainty that they are actually fixing a pitch mark. 

And the same could be done for spike marks...

[iacas]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Ok, I'll bite.  How does tapping down a spike mark, or even two, constitute a pace of play issue, while repairing a ball mark, which takes far longer, does not.

Why are you constraining it to one or two?

Exactly.

You asked for a reason. I gave you one. There are others.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

 

And the same could be done for spike marks...

What, call your playing partner over for every spike mark and debate over it. Talk about a wasting time. 

Just deal with it. Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of times, what might be called a spike mark, has caused my putt to change course. 

[David in FL]

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

What, call your playing partner over for every spike mark and debate over it. Talk about a wasting time. 

Just deal with it. Honestly, I can count on one hand the number of times, what might be called a spike mark, has caused my putt to change course. 

You need to play more golf if you don't run into spike marks more often than that!

And I do deal with it, I'd simply rather not, and it strikes me as inconsistent that the rules allow one type of golfer-caused imperfection to be repaired, but not another.  

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why are you constraining it to one or two?

Exactly.

You asked for a reason. I gave you one. There are others.

I routinely repair several ball marks on each green.  I also tamp down dozens of spike marks before I leave the green.  Neither impacts pace of play.

If there are real reasons that I'm missing, please share them.  

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

You need to play more golf if you don't run into spike marks more often than that!

I play plenty of golf. I played twice a week for 8 years on a packed municipal course. The ball was not bouncing around the green hitting spike marks. Maybe next time you need not assume. 

 

[David in FL]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

I play plenty of golf. I played twice a week for 8 years on a packed municipal course. The ball was not bouncing around the green hitting spike marks. Maybe next time you need not assume. 

 

Joking...  Joking!

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I routinely repair several ball marks on each green.  I also tamp down dozens of spike marks before I leave the green.  Neither impacts pace of play.

If there are real reasons that I'm missing, please share them.

I gave you a real reason.

Also, please define a spike mark. Ball marks are relatively easy to agree upon.

Spike marks? Not so.