Pete
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Pete
-
I think this is a pretty big one too. Nearest point of relief, 20 inches, job done. No more 1 club length of my choice and then some extra roll to get me out of trouble. I think some changes will make the game easier (such as flagstick rule) but some, like this drop area rule, will actually remove some of the advantages that you can currently gain. Exactly! If someone is willing to cheat, why would a rule (existing or new) stop them?
-
I love these proposals. Those that I've read so far seem like common sense to me. I hope they do enact most of them. Dustin Johnson will be wishing they did this a few years ago.
-
Totally agree. I doubt they will actually allow practice shots in bunkers. It seems pretty obvious that the scrambling rates would improve if they did. I'm not opposed to it at all but it would be very controversial on sites like this.
-
Oh man the sand trap is going to meltdown today! I can't wait
-
I'd rather beat my handicap and lose than win with a poor 18 hole score. bottom line is, I keep score whenever I play. For me, that is the whole point of playing and everything else (being outside, good company, hitting memorable shots etc) is a nice bonus. I often say that I'd happily be a scratch golfer and never win a single tournament. -
Niners fan so I'm pleased the Seahawks and Cowboys are out. Shame the Pats are in the AFCCG though (again!!!). Rodgers talent is ridiculous but I think GB secondary is going to get torched by Ryan/Jones. Could be a VERY high scoring NFC Champ Game.
-
Then maybe we will see this rule enacted across the whole course. Maybe after another Dustin Johnson situation but this time on the fringe. I can't wait for that. Mwahahahaha I'm not arguing whether being careful not to move the golf ball is a golfing skill. We simply disagree on that. But if removing or changing one of these rules that don't have to do with playing that sport, made it more more likely that the winner(s) are those who perform that particular sport better than others, why would you not want to remove or change it? That's the point I was trying to make. Thanks.
-
I completely understand what you are saying. However, the only reason this rule can even exist is because on the putting green you can recreate virtually the exact position of the ball. In the rough after you have accidentally kicked it, it is almost certain that you could not replicate the original location of the ball. IMO if we could replace the ball exactly as it was prior to it being moved accidentally any where on the golf course, I would be in favour of this new rule applying across the whole course. Because I don't see 'foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention' as anything to do with how good you are at playing golf. I'm in the minority.
- 165 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- usga
- announcement
- (and 3 more)
-
I know if you drop the ball as part of the action of marking it, it does not incur a penalty. So in this case at least, you can already accidently see the ball roll toward the hole and replace it after seeing the line of the putt, for no penalty. I guess the fact that I've never seen this happen, gives me a bit of comfort that it shouldn't start happening with new rule although you might predict that it will happen more often. I'm now seeing the point that carelessness can give you an advantage, and more so after this new local rule.
- 165 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- usga
- announcement
- (and 3 more)
-
Yeah this is a good point actually. I know you made it before but I'm only just seeing what you mean. Sorry for being slow. If it is a true accident, you can't negate the advantage gained from seeing the ball roll toward the hole as you say. Hmm, what would happen under existing rules if I simply marked the ball and as I was cleaning the ball, I dropped it and it rolled toward the hole, showing me the line? I need to check the rules on that. If there is no penalty there, then I guess we've always had the possibility of gaining an advantage from being clumsy/careless.
-
I see your point completely and I can therefore see why you don't like the new local rule. This is the main difference of opinion I think. It's not a central principle of the game to me so I'm happy with the new rule. Yes it does indeed. You are the golfer and you know your intent. IMO this is part of the game and underpins the rules of golf. Yep. Good summary of our positions. I'm happy that accidentally moving the ball is not a violation of a principle of the game. See @DaveP043's reply above regarding how the new rule makes no difference regarding reliance on honesty of golfer. Thanks Dave. Good point. It doesn't change the reliance on honesty at all. This whole cheating business is kind of irrelevant with regard to this new rule isn't it. As @krupa said, cheaters will cheat. This rule just changes how they will cheat.
-
None taken. This reply is really just for anyone still reading this thread so I won't expect or be offended if you don't reply. I have really enjoyed reading your point of view on this. Thank you. Personally I think this new rule highlights an important point regarding the rules of golf. Golf rules assume people are honest and referees are not required. You accept that some people will always cheat. So regardless of how difficult you make it to cheat by applying rules, they will just simply cheat. I see the problem is that by applying rules to try to guarantee that you cannot cheat, you will punish more innocent people in the quest to eradicate the cheats. A sort of 'guilty until proven innocent' approach. It finds too many people guilty when they are innocent, given the number of guilty cases it catches or avoids. I prefer an assumption of innocence. it is more in keeping with the spirit of golf. This new rule assumes that a golfer will be honest when assessing why a ball moved and if they intended it to. In fact an awful lot of the rules of golf assume that the golfer will self referee and be honest when doing so. If we were to reject this rule because it relies on golfers being honest, then there are an awful lot more rules that we should be rejecting, that have been there for an awful long time.
-
The existing rules provides for a penalty if you intentionally cause the ball to move. If you cheat and say you didn't intend to cause the ball to move, then you are applying this new rule where it should not apply. It is only honesty that stops you from applying any rule you wan't, whenever you want. If you are playing with other golfers, some times it is harder for your playing partners to notice that you are cheating due to the nature of your dishonesty. It would be really sad if continue to penalise honest golfers just because a few are willing to cheat.
-
Agreed
-
Do you understand that being dishonest is not taking advantage of the rule? It is cheating. I get it. Some dishonest golfers cheat. And this rule allows them another avenue to cheat. If I saw the same player 'accidently' nudge their ball down a sloping green more than once, ever, I would call them up on it and I would report them to the club committee (assuming they were a member of a club).
-
I don't consider that part of golfing ability. It looks like (with regard to this new local rule anyway) the R&A and USGA don't consider it to be on that list either. At least not on the putting green. This acknowledgement of reality is what I am glad the governing bodies are doing something about. This is what I agree with eliminating. Why would you want unjust penalties in your sport if you could eradicate them? I guess you are one of the golfers with not so noble intentions then if you would love to take advantage of this rule by intentionally nudging the ball and claiming it was accidental. Edit: Sorry, this is not taking advantage of this rule. It is intentionally causing the ball to move. Incurring a penalty. You cannot take advantage of this rule. You know if you intended to move the ball or not. The problem with the rule only occurs when the golfer in question is dishonest about their intentions.
-
After 12 years of golfing I got my first last December (2015) at a links course. 195 yards with four iron. It pitched 30 foot from the flag and rolled all the way into the hole. Not the best struck shot TBH but beggars can't be choosers.
-
This is a very good point. In the grand scheme of things, this change is going to make very little difference. It will eliminate a few penalties that, IMO, were unjustified. On the flip side it will add a few cases of players claiming they caused a ball to move when it is questionable that they did. These cases will be very few and far between. I think the fear coming from some people is that it encourages golfers to be careless and they believe this is a fundamental part of the game. Which is a perfectly valid fear. Just not one that I share. Personally, I think the rules were NOT written to ensure players were careful not to move their ball accidentally, or careful not to accidentally brush the sand in a bunker. I think they were written to make sure players didn't cheat (advance the ball, improve the lie, test the sand) in order that your score accurately reflects your golfing ability. The penalty is there to disincentivise the golfer from intentionally moving the ball or testing the sand or to negate any advantage gained from a non golfing ability occurrence. Rather than write the rule as 'Golfer shall not test the sand', they wrote it as 'Golfer shall not TOUCH the sand' to avoid the need for judgment and assessment of intention every time a golfer touches the sand for example. I get this. I completely understand this. It is necessary. However, I think there is room to improve the rules in order that your score better reflects your golfing ability. I see this change, as flawed as it may be technically, as a small step (in principle at least) towards this. It is a tiny step towards a more principle based set of rules, that recognise and not penalise, incidents happening despite good intentions, that can be rectified easily that have nothing to do with golfing ability, and I really like that. You guys have made so many perfectly presented cases of where this rule will fall down or be exploited and I can only agree with you. It is the principle of the change that I am defending. Improve the rules to ensure scores more accurately reflect golfing ability. Surely we all want this don't we?
-
I agree with everything you've said here apart from that someone should receive a penalty for being careless on the green. I don't understand why that matters. If the ball is replaced as a result of this carelessness, then no advantage is gained. They may be slowing down the round and annoying people, but that would be the same for someone knocking the ball off the tee on the teeing ground. There is no penalty for carelessness there.
-
I think that's an incredibly unfair and even rude characterization of those with different opinions on this. Sorry. I really was not trying to be rude or unfair. I am finding it hard to communicate the point that this local rule eliminates a penalty for something that has nothing to do with golfing skill. It makes the rules more likely to reward the better golfer and I like that and I don't think some people do like that. Too far from what or towards what? Edit: This question is better asked as: Are you against the principle of the new local rule? Or is it that there was nothing wrong with the old rule so why should it change?
-
Without me standing there, it would not have moved. I have caused it to move by standing next to the ball to address it. The same way Dustin Johnson may have caused it to move by touching the ground very close to the ball. Yes, it moves because of gravity but the golfer has created the altered environment in which gravity now moves the ball to a new location.
- 165 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- usga
- announcement
- (and 3 more)
-
I get it. It's physics. I understand physics. I think you can cause it to move whilst taking all precautions humanly possible. I disagree that it should be a penalty that's all. I think there are a few of you who will be left behind as the rules become a little less 'rules are rules' and a little more 'let's find out who the best golfer is'.
- 165 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- usga
- announcement
- (and 3 more)
-
I hear what you are saying Dave. The reason the example is extreme is to highlight my belief that you can take care not to move your ball but be the reason your ball moves nonetheless. In these circumstances I believe the old rule was unfair.
- 165 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- usga
- announcement
- (and 3 more)
-
Thanks for all the explanations. Your point of view is much clearer now. So I should be penalised for a ball moving, that otherwise would not have moved, when I stand next to the ball to address it. It moves due to the slope of the green, the speed of the green, the lie of the ball and now my weight pressing into the green via my feet. I do not agree that I did not take care, I simply 'caused the ball to move' by adding my weight to that area of the green whilst the lie of the ball was precarious and likely to move should any weight be applied near it. I don't understand what more care could be taken. I don't agree with your point of view. I like the new local rule. It embodies an element of common sense that I welcome to the rules of golf.
-
You think he should have avoided grounding his putter anywhere near the ball, just in case it caused it to move? I don't understand what this means. My point is simple and in response to this: If we accepted that he caused the ball to move by touching the ground near the ball or practicing his putting stroke near the ball, then this is EXACTLY the justification. It is what almost all golfers do. It is totally normally and generally acceptable to do this. No one thinks DJ did anything incorrect or risky or against the rules or even the principles of golf. So there is a justification for letting him off the hook. All golfers should be let off the hook in this situation.