What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf?

[Q.Q.Quillume]

I was playing in a HS tournament and was called for a 2 stroke penalty for hitting a leaf off of a tree in my practice swing. Not sure if this is a real rule or not, but if it is its retarded.

I'm wondering how you can be playing in a high school tournament without having a basic understanding for the rules and apparently with no respect for the rules?

[Hoovedawg]

Wow you guys need to calm down just a little bit.

Q.Q.Quillumep- Well it might have a little bit to do with the fact that I started playing golf (for the first time in my life) on July 29 of this year and the season started on August 15. We had 4 seniors graduate and they needed a person to play. I play baseball and do well in that so the golf coach asked me if I would play. And hey look, after playing for only about 4 months (haven't played in december or January) I have just as good of a handicap as you do.

I didn't know this and it was completly accidential. I'm not saying I shouldn't have been called for this, I was just answering the question asked. I don't like that rule.

[Fourputt]

I didn't know this and it was completly accidential. I'm not saying I shouldn't have been called for this, I was just answering the question asked. I don't like that rule.

Accidental or not, it still violated a very basic principle, that you do nothing to improve your lie or the area of your intended swing. As Bignose already said, how do you draw the line to determine how much you can break away before it really changes your situation? Because there is no other way to define limitations for "improving" ones lie within the rules, it has to be all encompassing.

If it makes you feel any better, you are in the company of a few hundred other players who have also fallen afoul of this rule in the same way, myself included. You just take your licks and keep on slugging. BTW, that's a marvelous improvement, from novice to 12 cap in just a few months. Sounds like you have a pretty good coach.

[Hoovedawg]

First off I want to say sorry, my last post may have sounded a bit rude. I just didn't like how some people *cough* Q.Q.Quillume *cough* acted like I didn't care about golf and didn't deserve to play.

I understand the rule and agree it is necessary but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[TourSpoon]

No need to apologize. He got a little off topic and ran afoul. All you did was answer the original question as it was intended.

[golf_junkie27]

I don't mind having to hit out of a divot. What I do mind is someone not replacing it. It's part of golf etiquette. Personally, good golf etiquette is almost as important as following the rules.

The one thing I can't stand about golf is the ability for someone to call the PGA and inform them that an infraction may have occurred. Usually, this happens after a round has been completed and the possible infraction has been missed by officials and players. This is the equivalent to me calling MLB and letting them know that a homerun was actually foul and the game should be re-started. I fully understand that golf is a game of honor. However, if the officials and players MISS it and it's not called, how can you punish them after the fact?

[TourSpoon]

Good point. They had the Stadler example from years ago on today. He was DQed the following day when they showed a replay of him hitting from a towel. Somebody called in and reported the violation. Is there a statute of limitations clause on rules?

[giantbear]

First the OB stakes, fences, etc. are there to define the boundaries of the golf course. What may or may not be on the other side of the boundary is irrelevant. And when you hit the ball there you have managed to hit such a bad shot that it is no longer on the golf course. There is no option to play it as it lies. The rules have no choice but to require you to play your next stroke from the last point where your ball was at rest on the course. That is the only point of reference on the course that can be used for determining relief in this situation. You can't use the line defining out of bounds as a reference point as the line itself is out of bounds. Nothing makes sense but to require a reload. The penalty is for the privilege of being allowed to take the ball in hand and put it back in play.

This might work, except of course for the many courses i have played with which contain out of bounds markings within the confines of the course itself. As for the rules leaving you "no choice but to" the rules can allow you to do whatever the rules give you the option of doing. As for a point of reference, much like a lateral hazard, the point of reference to be used is the point the ball crossed the ob line. I'm sorry, but your rational for why the rule is as it is seems more like opinion than fact. Your argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the ob line demarks the confines of the course. But it does not always do so.

[Fourputt]

This might work, except of course for the many courses i have played with which contain out of bounds markings within the confines of the course itself. As for the rules leaving you "no choice but to" the rules can allow you to do whatever the rules give you the option of doing. As for a point of reference, much like a lateral hazard, the point of reference to be used is the point the ball crossed the ob line. I'm sorry, but your rational for why the rule is as it is seems more like opinion than fact. Your argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the ob line demarks the confines of the course. But it does not always do so.

Even when the boundary line is there to prohibit play from another part of the course, for the purposes of the hole being played, you are still off the course and it still doesn't matter what is on the other side of the line. Ob is still OB. It still doesn't change anything I said previously. The OB line is by definition not part of the course, and cannot become a reference point for relief. If you don't like my answer, attend a USGA Rules seminar and ask your instructor. You will get much the same answer I just gave you. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you.

By the way, The USGA does frown on internal out of bounds markings, but that never seems to stop courses from using them. My home course had such an area, but it was only temporary until the trees between the two holes grew tall enough to form a natural barrier. The OB stakes were removed as soon as it was reasonable. Unfortunately that situation probably caused me to blow what might have been my best ever round, because I hit OB on that hole (the 18th) and ended up with a triple bogey for a 74 total. If I hit that same shot today, I would still have a reasonable chance for a par. That's just how golf goes sometimes.

[mikelz]

I am sounding more and more like FourPutt here... but if you'd research this rule just a little, you'd realize that it is there for a reason. You hit your ball under a tree and you have to take a restricted swing -- you have to accept that as part of your hitting it under a tree in the first place. In your practice swings, if you knock something off of a tree, like a branch or a leaf, you basically make your swing less restricted. Therefore, you are helping yourself more than you should be able to. That's why this rule is in place.

No snipping required. Thanks for that report - it's right on.

[iacas]

Losing a ball warrants a penalty, I think - but OB is just plain wrong. I can mis entirely and be hitting 2 from the tee box, but if I make contact and it just goes sideways...I'm hitting 3?

How about this: because some penalties are more severe. If you have OB on the left, clearly the designer, the course owner... someone wants you to play out to the right.

Oftentimes in some classic courses, OB plays an integral role. It heightens the risk/reward. It'd be much less dramatic if it was only a one-stroke penalty. What's wrong with having tiers of penalties, OB and a lost ball being the two worst, water in the middle, and other hazards (sand, rough, etc.) lighter than those? Nada. You don't like the OB penalty? Stop hitting it out of bounds.

Back in the old days it was just the distance penalty. We need to bring that back.

For four years, IIRC. It's not like it was a long-standing rule. More like a brief experiment.

[lamebums]

You don't like the OB penalty?

Easier said than done, buddy.

For four years, IIRC. It's not like it was a long-standing rule. More like a brief experiment.

The USGA has gone back and forth over this but it's been the same since 1964:

The term out of bounds was first defined in 1899 as being outside the recognised boundaries of the course. Penalty distance only. 1908 Redefined as all ground on which play is prohibited. Penalty distance only still, but may be changed to stroke and distance by local rule for both forms of play. Also, a ball out of bounds may be treated as lost by local rule, (i.e. lost hole in match play). This change was not adopted by the USGA until 1915, although the local rule adjustment was not incorporated. 1920 Stroke and distance, but now the penalty stroke may be remitted by local rule. 1947 USGA and 1950 R&A.; Distance only, and no provision for change by a local rule. 1952 Stroke and distance. 1960 USGA experimentally changed to distance only. 1961 USGA back to stroke and distance. in addition, the USGA allowed an alternative procedure of stroke only - dropping a ball within two club lengths of where the ball went out of bounds on courses where the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe". 1964 USGA allowed a local rule to be adopted which allowed a stroke-only option if it was felt that stroke and distance would be "'unduly severe." The player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option. Rescinded in 1968. From the introduction of out of bounds, a ball was out of bounds when the greater part of it lay out of bounds. From 1950, all the ball has to be out. When out of bounds is defined by a line, the line was in bounds until 1954.

[SubPar]

In addition to having to play from divots in the fairway, not being able to repair spike marks on the green is a really stupid thing.

SubPar

[SirMilton]

Mud on the ball. If visible to another player, you should be able to mark, clean and drop directly on the mark.

[mn723]

I think the 14 club rule is obsolete.The way they build new courses with deep rough 7500 yards large bunkers you should be able to carry what ever you feel you need.

Funny as I was gonna say that I think the rules should only allow 10 clubs. Also spike marks on the green should be able to be fixed, especially the way people shuffle their feet on the greens at your avg public course.

[giantbear]

Easier said than done, buddy.

Interesting read. Any idea if the USGA still allows the local rule of stroke-only option?? I would be curious to read the USGA's reasoning for changing the rule back in 1964.

[Crafty]

If there is one bad rule in golf, I would say it is that you can't fix a spike mark. I can fix the crater that I or somebody else leaves in the ground from their wedge shot, but I can't fix a mark five or six times that small!?

[Fourputt]

Interesting read. Any idea if the USGA still allows the local rule of stroke-only option?? I would be curious to read the USGA's reasoning for changing the rule back in 1964.

No there is no local rule that would allow a club to modify the penalty.