nleary9201

Zhindig...this only applies to match play. There is just you and one opponent. Chet...funny you mention baseball. Had a funny occurrence years ago. Was coaching girls softball and we were the higher seed in a tourney. As higher seed we were "automatically " required to be home team. But our record was better that year as visitors. Our girls all like to bat first (bucking conventional wisdom). I argued as higher seed we should have choice and not be required to be home team. The officials freaked out a little but eventually saw the merit of my argument. We were visitors. I think we won the game to. Lol

The oder of play is dictated by the winner of the previous hole now. It changes as the match goes on. Its not " I go first, now you go first". Its only on who wins the previous hole, or carries over. And "iacas" as to you problem with my"case".I'm just putting this out there for people to think about. Maybe create a conversation with you golf buddies. Thats all.

To reiterate, the core of my argument is that a choice is always better than an ultimatum. The " I like to hit first " argument doesn't apply because you can still "choose" to hit first if you win the previous hole. Then again look at the football coin toss. The winner has the choice to kick, receive or defer. Its up to the winner to choose.

I agree it probably won't change but I can't see logic in the honor as "requiring " you to hit first. (,match play). Seems like the honor should give you the choice and a more advantageous position.

In the end I just think the choice would be better

Interesting take. But I think the original intent, partly because of the word "honor" was meant to reward the winner of the previous hole

The option is always better in my opinion. I remember in the 70s my pittsburgh steelers would win the toss and elect to kick off. The defense was so good they figured they would have better field position after a "3 and out" and punt. What if they were "required " to receive the kickoff instead. Another example would be winning the lottery. You have the "choice" of a lump sum or installment payout. You won...you choose.

I think it would be better to have the choice to hit first or second when you have the honor in match play. A choice is always preferable to being required in just about every aspect of life, let alone golf match play. Example..a difficult par 3 over water on a windy day. Might be nice to see how your opponent plays it first. Other examples ...win the toss at a football game and you have the choice to kickoff or receive.

They seem to waste them alot. At most game I attend it happens at least twice or 3 times.

I think the newer rule (I am 55) where coaches can call time out from the bench needs tweaking or changing. Back in the "old" days, players had to call time out. On the surface, coaches calling time out seem ok but the unintended consequence is that they are "playing" the game from the bench. Defenses can hardly ever get a 5 second call anymore. The coach always calls time out at 4 sec. That makes a great defensive effort go for naught. Jump balls are averted by time outs too. I wonder how many posessions time out change in a game. Lets go back to the way it was. If a player has the presence of mind to call time out, let him but keep the coaches from "playing the game".

Ok, I'm done with this one. I may have changed a few minds and made a few of you think outside the box a little. In the end, if winning the previous hole is only an order of play issue, why can't the winner defer, just like players 3 or 4 in the foursome? That would be the best solution. I'll be back to get everyone's knickers in a bunch with the next one soon. Thanks for listening.

Everyone is getting away from my basic point. An "option" is always better than a "you must." Coin flip winners have the "option". Rent with and "option" to buy. The quarterback "option" play. Take something back to Walmart, you have the "option" of store credit or your money back. Thats all I want. Not "having to" hit first after I win a hole, thats all. Don't know why that doesn't make sense.

You could still tee of first by taking that option. But if you are like the bowler mentioned in a previous post, you could choose to tee of 2nd or 3rd or 4th.

Thanks MyrtleBeach, someone finally gets it.

Im not wanting "more perks". Just don't think it should be a detriment. If you don't like to go first, you shouldn't have to. Again, a coin flip winner in any other sport has the "option"--i. e. to kick off or receive. I also take issue with another bad rule I ran into in a softball tourney, (similar situation, YOU GUYS WILL LOVE THIS ONE!) My daughters team was seeded higher in their bracket. We go out for the pre -game talk with the umpires and they tell us we are the home team (only because of a higher seeding.) So of course I say " No we would like to be the away team, shouldn't we have the option of being home or away because of our higher seeding. Our team had a much better record when being the away team. The umps were at a loss. Nobody had ever brought it up. They agreed in principal but couldn't change the rule on the spot, which I understood. Conventional wisdom isn't always best. Some things that are traditional aren't always correct. Back to the softball argument, I would like to see some stats on being a home or away team on a NEUTRAL field. I think there is way more pressure being behind and having your last at bat, the do or die situation. You both get the same number of at bats, but the pressure of the bottom on the "7th" in girls softball can be overwhelming to some teams. The option, the option, the option, is all I want.