Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt
You point out what you think are inconsistencies, what you see as flaws.. We point out why they are not inconsistent within the context and intent of the rules. We give examples and explain our reasoning, which is essentially the same reasoning process that the governing rules bodies would use in discussing a proposed change.
Then you just start repeating the same things over and over, without ever proposing a solution which remains true to the intent of the rules, or that refutes anything I or AF have said. Most of the time you don't even refer back to anything we have said, instead you just ignore it. I don't really even know why I'm still typing this, except that I'm astounded that this can be such a difficult concept to grasp. It would be easier to convince the Pope that Jesus is alive and living in Beverly Hills... 
I will end this by repeating the truism... "No man is so blind as he who will not see."  |
Playing both sides of this fence, the word "intent" inherently means that there is a spirit to the rule as well as a letter, which, in fact, kind of gives CP a point in his argument of equity. We all know the rules are to be followed to the letter, but when the letter isn't always clear, we abide by the intent, or the spirit of what's right and equitable. Normally, we are unfortunate in golf because the policy is often "take a stroke" or "no relief" - the spirit of the game is that the game is meant to be difficult.
On the other hand, there IS a difference in an embedded ball (plugged ball) and a divot, there ARE rules that govern these issues specifically, and until those rules are looked at (we should still, and always, question the rules...) we play it as it lays...
As well, have to agree with the thought that cart path bounces that end up 50 yards from the green are rub of the green as well. Bad breaks come with the good breaks... divots and all...