What do you consider the most stupid rule in golf?

[RX Phoenix]

Got to be the one where a player addresses the ball, like a putt, the wind blows the ball and moves it, and the player gets a stroke penalty. The rule makes no provision for the difference between addressing a putt and addressing a ball elsewhere.

Boo Weekley got a 1 stroke penalty at the Players because the wind blew his ball, incredible.

There are a lot of bad rules in golf, this is just one we saw recently.

Another might be the rule where any loose impediment can be moved, which is why Tiger got a group of spectators and moved a boulder in a waste area . . . it should read any loose impediment that the player can move themselves.

[golf_junkie27]

Have you ever sprayed a divot?

So, even I can't repair a divot, at the very least, I can fill it with the sand and do my best to level it out. It's the least I can do and provides courtesy to the golfers behind me.

Would you rather find yourself in what used to be a divot that has now been filled with sand? Or not?

[ganjagolfer]

can't play naked, i mean they show all this violence on tv of people getting burned and shot and you can't play golf in the clothes god made ya

[perlguy9]

I'm going to have to go with the two stroke penalty for telling someone what club you used if you ask. Someone asked then called it on me during a tournament last year and it cost me a top three spot.

Shouldn't have answered.

Did you call them on it for asking?

[iacas]

People gripe all day long that Goydos' ball got hit by a gust of wind, yet a lot people think this rule is okay. I don't get it.

They gripe about the playoff being held at a hole where luck plays a role. They aren't asking for the rules to be changed to allow for do-overs whenever the wind knocks a ball out of the air and into the water.

Big difference. As for the divot people, again, my stance is simply "get over it." So you hit the ball in the fairway - good for you. If you get to over-turn every bit of bad luck like divots in the fairway, why not overturn the good luck you get, like when you yank a ball and the trees spit it back into the fairway? If you get to move your ball when it lands in a divot, why shouldn't you have to throw your ball back into the trees when they help you out? It's called the rub of the green. Learn to play from a divot. Make yourself a better player. Geoff Ogilvy won a U.S. Open hitting from a divot on the 72nd hole. He mentioned it, but he certainly didn't complain about it. Winners overcome obstacles and the occasional bad break. They also capitalize on the good breaks they get along the way. And again, go ahead and define a "divot." It's impractical. If "players shall be allowed to drop their ball out of any divot through the green on short grass (fairway height or lower)" becomes a rule, you're going to get a lot of arguments over what's a divot and what isn't. It is, again, an impractical rule. If the counter-part to the rule you think is stupid is even more stupid, then the original rule isn't very stupid to begin with.

[AmenCorner]

Oh, this is an easy one.

Penalizing a player whos ball moves while he is standing over it on the green. That rule is flat out ridiculous.

[golf_junkie27]

Oh, this is an easy one.

Amen,

What should we do about what happened to Nicholas Thompson? He went to mark his ball, the wind came and moved it six feet closer to the hole and he made birdie. He did not have to re-mark his ball. He benefited from this. Should that rule be changed?

[Craig Mac]

Amen,

He had not marked his ball yet, hence he wouldn't have to "re-mark" his ball. Doesn't make a difference if he was 150 yards away or 2 feet away when the ball moved. Again this is "rub of the green", had the flag been on the other side of the green his ball would have rolled away from the hole. In that case he definitely should not be moving the ball closer to the hole.

There are good breaks and bad breaks, that is just golf.

[golf_junkie27]

He had not marked his ball yet, hence he wouldn't have to "re-mark" his ball. Again this is "rub of the green", had the flag been on the other side of the green his ball would have rolled away from the hole. In that case he definitely should not be moving the ball closer to the hole.

I realize he had not marked his ball. My point being the ball had stopped and he went to go mark it. An act of nature made his ball move and he benefited from it. He did not have to play from it's original position. I'm a bit lost when you say that he should not be moving the ball closer to the hole.

[DDBowdoin]

They gripe about the playoff being held at a hole where luck plays a role. They aren't asking for the rules to be changed to allow for do-overs whenever the wind knocks a ball out of the air and into the water.

I don't really have any issues with divots or what not because it's definately part of the game but my qualm is actually the implementation of the rules in a general sense. My homecourse is in such piss poor shape, because I'd rather spend 15 bucks and play 4 times then spend 100 and play once a week that many of the rules simply don't apply to a course in such condition. I never roll a ball over in the rough but will roll over almost every ball in the fairway because when the rules of golf were written they probably did not conceive a course being in such a poor shape. good courses have plush fairways, have GUR clearly marked, and dont have random holes, tire tracks etc etc impeding your game. Whenever I play nice courses I play really well because I'm so used to crap that a plush fairway almost becomes easy.

[Craig Mac]

I realize he had not marked his ball. My point being the ball had stopped and he went to go mark it. An act of nature made his ball move and he benefited from it. He did not have to play from it's original position.

I was making a case if the hole was opposite to the direction the ball rolled and rolled away from the hole, he should not be allowed to move it closer.

It is just one of those strange situations with the ball moving and since it hadn't been marked he played in accordance with the rules. Imagine if a ball was hanging on the edge of a pond and as you got a few feet from it, it rolled in the water, you wouldn't replace the ball and proceed as nothing happened. Just chalk it up to bad/good luck and play on.

[Fourputt]

I don't really have any issues with divots or what not because it's definately part of the game but my qualm is actually the implementation of the rules in a general sense. My homecourse is in such piss poor shape, because I'd rather spend 15 bucks and play 4 times then spend 100 and play once a week that many of the rules simply don't apply to a course in such condition. I never roll a ball over in the rough but will roll over almost every ball in the fairway because when the rules of golf were written they probably did not conceive a course being in such a poor shape.

This is a rationalization in ignorance of the facts. The Rules of Golf were first documented in 1745. At that time, the few existing courses were in reality little more than slightly tended sheep pastures. And those first rules were much more harsh than what we have today. All you are saying when you don't play by the rules because of the condition of your course is that you don't play by the rules. I play my home course winter and summer, and I play by the same set of rules regardless of the conditions. If I'm playing in a tournament and the local rule for preferred lies is in effect, then I will use it, but not otherwise.

By following the rules only when it's convenient, I doubt if you understand the rules well enough to use them correctly when it IS convenient.

[iacas]

...because when the rules of golf were written they probably did not conceive a course being in such a poor shape.

?????????

Yeah, we had agronomy NAILED in the 1800s, I tell ya! It's been all downhill since then. And those Scotsmen, playing in those chewed-down pastures... why, nothing's better at giving you a good lie 100% of the time than a herd of grazing animals.

[Craig Mac]

... why, nothing's better at giving you a good lie 100% of the time than a herd of grazing animals.

LOL, that is pretty funny

[Guest]

Surely it is more unreasonable to give a stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball than for OB? OB almost always has to be a BAD shot; lost ball can be simply unlucky and is most of the time nowhere near as off-line as an OB shot (there are obviously exceptions). All of us have hit what we thought were great shots and then find the grass a yard off the fairway is so long the ball can't be found.

For that to get the same penalty as OB, and a worse penalty than hitting into a hazard seems most unfair.

[JerseyThursday]

Surely it is more unreasonable to give a stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball than for OB? OB almost always has to be a BAD shot; lost ball can be simply unlucky and is most of the time nowhere near as off-line as an OB shot (there are obviously exceptions). All of us have hit what we thought were great shots and then find the grass a yard off the fairway is so long the ball can't be found.

More often than not a ball hit OB is tough to find. By having the same penalty for both eliminates the argument “my ball is probably still in bounds, I just can’t find it”.

[StrmStlkr]

OB being stroke and distance without a doubt. I think you should just drop where it crossed and take a stroke penalty.

[Bignose]

I really do wish someone would take up iacas' challenge (and mine and Fourputt's from this thread's first go-around) and actually step up and unambiguously define what a divot/divot hole is.

Basically, you need to be able to discern between the holes made by a club and the holes made by animals, and just nature in general. And the rule has to be completely and totally objective. No "It looks like a divot" because otherwise you open the door to all sorts of abuse -- any non-flat lie could be interpreted as an "old divot".

If someone can come up with a clear, concise, easy and objective way to determine what is and isn't a divot, then you might be on to something here. I suspect that the average person, and even the average rules makes of the USGA and R&A;, agrees that it isn't completely fair to end up in someone's old divot hole. But, the rules makers understand further that introducing any ambiguities in the rules blows the door wide open for abuse. Notice how none of the rules have judgment calls in them? The ball is either in a hazard or it isn't, no judgment calls necessary. The ball is either on the green, or it isn't; the ball is either in the hole or it isn't. Etc. etc.

So, someone, please step up and come up with a non-judgment call divot hole rule, and maybe we'll get somewhere. Until then, however, the easiest and fairest way to deal with it is to not make any exceptions to the rules for divot holes. Please don't just complain about divot holes without actually thinking about the issue and proposing a fair and objective solution.