2 Balls on green on same line....

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

If you have marked and lifted your ball to let the "away" player putt, then repair a pitch mark in the line of another competitor who objects to the repair, you have breached rule 1-2.

This could be considered fair and equittable but I don't believe our discussion implied players judging ball marks for being away. Most everyone I know repair their pitch marks when walking up to their ball and then when it is their turn to putt they examine the line to see if there are any pitch marks that might throw their putt offline then they repair them if needed. You implied a competitor couldn't do that if another competitor told him to leave it and I don't really see how the USGA would allow that. When the balls are marked and lifted then the person furthest away has the ball so to speak and can repair any pitch marks he feels he needs to return the green to its original putting surface or as close as possible. Do we agree on this, now?

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

When the balls are marked and lifted then the person furthest away has the ball so to speak and can repair any pitch marks he feels he needs to return the green to its original putting surface or as close as possible. Do we agree on this, now?

Yes, but the discussion I have been having is whether the player can fix a pitch mark in the line of another player if the other player told him not to.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Yes, but the discussion I have been having is whether the player can fix a pitch mark in the line of another player if the other player told him not to.

If it is an opponent, NO. If it is a competitor, Yes. Again we would have to add the stipulation that all balls still lie in their original positions from the previous stroke. I believe both match play and stroke play, the participants could both be considered players of the game of golf. If you are wanting to make this a word game, then I'm out. Have a great day.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by savgolfjunkie

Is this then the reason the tour guys repair pitch marks first, THEN mark their ball? I've never thought about that routine before....
Repairing a pitch mark is simply returning the green to its original playing surface and as someone else stated, anyone (player) can fix any ball mark on the green

Please see the above posts and decision 16-1c/2.

[JPsuff]

.


There are ten commandments for how to live one's life, yet there are over 600 pages of "decisions" for the rules of a game.


Go figure.




-JP

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.


There are ten commandments for how to live one's life, yet there are over 600 pages of "decisions" for the rules of a game.


Go figure.




-JP

Yeah, but look at the entire law libraries filled with thousands of books inspired by and based on those 10 commandments.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yeah, but look at the entire law libraries filled with thousands of books inspired by and based on those 10 commandments.

True.

But since it usually takes an act of Congress to get most people to fix a ball mark in the first place, I don't see much point in having an actual rule written which basically allows them to ignore ballmarks even more than they do now.

Game rules are essentially based upon common sense and fairness (or at least they should be). When we played baseball or football when we were kids, we dealt with questionable situations by employing those concepts and we got along fine. And when a situation could not be resolved by way of a rule (either through ignorance or misinterpretation) we simply announced a "do over" and the game went on.

I know that there are many "Rules Junkies" out there who thrive on the intricacy and complexity of "The Rules of Golf", but I think it's fair to say that this game can be played to the satisfaction of most people if the simple concepts of fairness and common sense are applied to a situation without all of the exceptions and decisions heaped on top.

Like fixing a ballmark.

I can undertake such a reconstruction project which may take as long as ten or fifteen seconds and involves an earthmoving procedure along with filling-in an excavation site and is finished with a regrading operation but I'm not allowed to simply tap down a spike mark which takes less than a second and doesnt require any special equipment or construction techniques.

THAT defies common sense.

Or if I hit a ball into a water hazard. Most people (including myself) will simply take another ball out of their golf bag and drop it near the edge of the hazard, count a stroke and continue play. But the rules junkies will insts that the tees come out to mark the "last-crossed" position followed by the club to determine the area in which to drop the ball - all of which needlessly takes time and essentially accomplishes the same thing. I mean, isn't it enough that I lose a $4.00 golf ball and then assess a pentalty stroke without having to go through all of the silly measuring and marking?

So what if I'm off by an inch? Or a foot even? What difference does it make? My intention is to take a penalty and drop a new ball to continue play in a simple and timely manner and THAT employs both the fairness and common sense concepts. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that's needed. All of the other nonsense is just needless minutia.

The Rules of Golf have evolved into a six-headed dragon over the years and I believe that most of them could be thrown out tomorrow and it wouldn't hurt the game one bit as long as fairness and common sense are applied to a situation.



It would also serve to speed things up as well.


-JP

[savgolfjunkie]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

True.

But since it usually takes an act of Congress to get most people to fix a ball mark in the first place, I don't see much point in having an actual rule written which basically allows them to ignore ballmarks even more than they do now.

Game rules are essentially based upon common sense and fairness (or at least they should be). When we played baseball or football when we were kids, we dealt with questionable situations by employing those concepts and we got along fine. And when a situation could not be resolved by way of a rule (either through ignorance or misinterpretation) we simply announced a "do over" and the game went on.

I know that there are many "Rules Junkies" out there who thrive on the intricacy and complexity of "The Rules of Golf", but I think it's fair to say that this game can be played to the satisfaction of most people if the simple concepts of fairness and common sense are applied to a situation without all of the exceptions and decisions heaped on top.

Like fixing a ballmark.

I can undertake such a reconstruction project which may take as long as ten or fifteen seconds and involves an earthmoving procedure along with filling-in an excavation site and is finished with a regrading operation but I'm not allowed to simply tap down a spike mark which takes less than a second and doesnt require any special equipment or construction techniques.

THAT defies common sense.

Or if I hit a ball into a water hazard. Most people (including myself) will simply take another ball out of their golf bag and drop it near the edge of the hazard, count a stroke and continue play. But the rules junkies will insts that the tees come out to mark the "last-crossed" position followed by the club to determine the area in which to drop the ball - all of which needlessly takes time and essentially accomplishes the same thing. I mean, isn't it enough that I lose a $4.00 golf ball and then assess a pentalty stroke without having to go through all of the silly measuring and marking?

So what if I'm off by an inch? Or a foot even? What difference does it make? My intention is to take a penalty and drop a new ball to continue play in a simple and timely manner and THAT employs both the fairness and common sense concepts. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that's needed. All of the other nonsense is just needless minutia.

The Rules of Golf have evolved into a six-headed dragon over the years and I believe that most of them could be thrown out tomorrow and it wouldn't hurt the game one bit as long as fairness and common sense are applied to a situation.



It would also serve to speed things up as well.


-JP

I agree 1000X over....well said. (and if anyone disagrees, they need to take off the bowtie and loosen the top button of their overly starched shirt....then ask themselves if they have ever driven 57mph in a 55 zone....maybe not the best comparison, but minor infractions occur while driving and in golf and neither affect the overall end result)

[atticusfinch]

There are two basic questions discussed on these sites. 1) what do the rules of golf say and 2) what do most people do or what is fair in this case or that.

The number 2) people get all twisted up when reading answers from number 1) people because they don't make this distinction.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

There are two basic questions discussed on these sites. 1) what do the rules of golf say and 2) what do most people do or what is fair in this case or that.

The number 2) people get all twisted up when reading answers from number 1) people because they don't make this distinction.

OK, let's talk about "distinctions".


Craig Stadler was assessed a two-stroke penalty for "building a stance" because he chose to kneel on a towel to play a shot from under a shrub in order to keep his pants clean. (Never mind the fact that hitting a shot on his knees was difficult enough).

But a player enters a bunker and spends several seconds digging his feet into the sand to gain a firm footing - but that's OK.

Or, if someone attempts to play a shot while standing in a water hazard and he moves an unstable rock from beneath his foot to gain a firmer stance - THAT is a two-stroke penalty. But if the same player (now on dry land) takes his stance and his foot is resting on a stick, he can move the stick out from under his foot with no penalty.

So where's this "distinction" you're referring to?


In fact, referring to the bunker lie again, Greg Norman (in an old instructional video) described his method for successfully playing a shot from a fairway bunker by telling the viewer that when he digs his back foot in, he suggests to do so on an angle so as to create a wedge from which to "push off" when swinging towards the ball.

Isn't THAT "building a stance"?

So which is it? Placing a towel beneath your knee or moving an underwater rock "Ist verboten!", but digging one's feet into the sand of a bunker or removing a stick from beneath one's feet is fine with the USGA?

Or how about the old bromide: "Hit the ball as it lies"?

This has been the backbone of the rules of golf since the game was invented. That is until the "Lift, Clean and Place" rule was adopted so that the poor unfortunates on Tour wouldn't have to hit a muddy ball from a soft lie. Instead, they get to pick up the ball, its place having been marked by a tee of course (after all, we don't want to break any rules), clean the ball and then get to place it on a nice, cushy tuft of grass.

Well shoot! Why don't we just let 'em tee it up while we're at it?

Yet if I or any other weekend player did the same thing, some Rules Junkie is going to scream bloody murder because The Committee or some other Big Brother cabal of stuffed shirts didn't actually specify such action as a "Local Rule" or some other such permission-granting edict.

So what distinguishes a "Lift, Clean and Place" environment? Did it have to rain hard? Is the mud the result of a broken sprinkler? Or is it that Johhny Logo might miss out on a Top Ten finish because the mud on his ball might produce an unpredictable or irregular ball flight at a critical juncture in his round and he might only shoot a 63 instead of a 62 which could cost him Fed-Ex Cup points?

So much for "Hit the ball as it lies", I guess.

Or how about being allowed to remove a ball from a plugged lie but not from a divot? What's the difference?

Or the fact that I, (apparently with the help of as many people as I can summon) can move a 600 lb. boulder out of my way by calling it a loose impediment, but I'm not allowed to move a pebble in a bunker?

Doesn't any of this seem silly to you?

Basic rules are necessary and I'm fine with that. But when they become arbitrary and capricious they cease to be guidelines and become fiats to be enforced at the whim of governing bodies.


And that's not in keeping with the "Spirit of the Game", that's just politics.


-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

OK, let's talk about "distinctions".


Craig Stadler was assessed a two-stroke penalty for "building a stance" because he chose to kneel on a towel to play a shot from under a shrub in order to keep his pants clean. (Never mind the fact that hitting a shot on his knees was difficult enough).

But a player enters a bunker and spends several seconds digging his feet into the sand to gain a firm footing - but that's OK.

Or, if someone attempts to play a shot while standing in a water hazard and he moves an unstable rock from beneath his foot to gain a firmer stance - THAT is a two-stroke penalty. But if the same player (now on dry land) takes his stance and his foot is resting on a stick, he can move the stick out from under his foot with no penalty.

So where's this "distinction" you're referring to?


In fact, referring to the bunker lie again, Greg Norman (in an old instructional video) described his method for successfully playing a shot from a fairway bunker by telling the viewer that when he digs his back foot in, he suggests to do so on an angle so as to create a wedge from which to "push off" when swinging towards the ball.

Isn't THAT "building a stance"?

So which is it? Placing a towel beneath your knee or moving an underwater rock "Ist verboten!", but digging one's feet into the sand of a bunker or removing a stick from beneath one's feet is fine with the USGA?

Or how about the old bromide: "Hit the ball as it lies"?

This has been the backbone of the rules of golf since the game was invented. That is until the "Lift, Clean and Place" rule was adopted so that the poor unfortunates on Tour wouldn't have to hit a muddy ball from a soft lie. Instead, they get to pick up the ball, its place having been marked by a tee of course (after all, we don't want to break any rules), clean the ball and then get to place it on a nice, cushy tuft of grass.

Well shoot! Why don't we just let 'em tee it up while we're at it?

Yet if I or any other weekend player did the same thing, some Rules Junkie is going to scream bloody murder because The Committee or some other Big Brother cabal of stuffed shirts didn't actually specify such action as a "Local Rule" or some other such permission-granting edict.

So what distinguishes a "Lift, Clean and Place" environment? Did it have to rain hard? Is the mud the result of a broken sprinkler? Or is it that Johhny Logo might miss out on a Top Ten finish because the mud on his ball might produce an unpredictable or irregular ball flight at a critical juncture in his round and he might only shoot a 63 instead of a 62 which could cost him Fed-Ex Cup points?

So much for "Hit the ball as it lies", I guess.

Or how about being allowed to remove a ball from a plugged lie but not from a divot? What's the difference?

Or the fact that I, (apparently with the help of as many people as I can summon) can move a 600 lb. boulder out of my way by calling it a loose impediment, but I'm not allowed to move a pebble in a bunker?

Doesn't any of this seem silly to you?

Basic rules are necessary and I'm fine with that. But when they become arbitrary and capricious they cease to be guidelines and become fiats to be enforced at the whim of governing bodies.


And that's not in keeping with the "Spirit of the Game", that's just politics.


-JP

You sound like you are taking this personally. It ain't personal, It's rules discussion. But that's an example of what I meant by not making the distinction.

Don't stop, you were on a roll.

Why can I ground a club in the fairway but not a water hazard with the kind of same ground?

Why can I carry 13 clubs but not 15?

Why can't I declare a ball unplayable in a water hazard, but I can in a bunker?

Why can I be DQ for teeing the ball one inch outside the teeing ground?

Why can I move a water hazard stake, but not an OB stake?

Why can I get advice from a spectator, but I cannot ask him for it?

Why is there a rule defining the order of play, but there is no penalty for breaching the rule?

Why do I incur a penalty for striking the flagstick in the hole when putting on the green, but not when putting from the fringe?

Why do the pros get spotters and rarely lose a ball and I don't?

Why can I put my hand above the rim to make a shot, but not to block it?

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You sound like you are taking this personally. It ain't personal, It's rules discussion. But that's an example of what I meant by not making the distinction.

Don't stop, you were on a roll.

Why can I ground a club in the fairway but not a water hazard with the kind of same ground?

Why can I carry 13 clubs but not 15?

Why can't I declare a ball unplayable in a water hazard, but I can in a bunker?

Why can I be DQ for teeing the ball one inch outside the teeing ground?

Why can I move a water hazard stake, but not an OB stake?

Why can I get advice from a spectator, but I cannot ask him for it?

Why is there a rule defining the order of play, but there is no penalty for breaching the rule?

Why do I incur a penalty for striking the flagstick in the hole when putting on the green, but not when putting from the fringe?

Why do the pros get spotters and rarely lose a ball and I don't?

Why can I put my hand above the rim to make a shot, but not to block it?

Why indeed?

And I'm sure that several dozen more examples of such silliness could be listed.


I play this and all games as fairly as I can and I think that's fine. I do however find myself rolling my eyes whenever someone steps in to quote chapter and verse some obscure amendment to an amendment of a decision of a rule which, in my opinion, is silly to begin with. I don't take many things personally, least of all the rules of a game. I'm simply commenting on the sheer incongruity of many of golf's rules which oftentimes seem as contradictory as the "Old Testament/New Testament versions of the Bible.

Like I said, I play fairly and that's good enough for me and for those with whom I play. I'm simply making an observation more than anything else. And besides, it stirs a bit of controversy and debate and I find that quite enjoyable.


I love to argue!


-JP

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Why indeed?

And I'm sure that several dozen more examples of such silliness could be listed.


I play this and all games as fairly as I can and I think that's fine. I do however find myself rolling my eyes whenever someone steps in to quote chapter and verse some obscure amendment to an amendment of a decision of a rule which, in my opinion, is silly to begin with. I don't take many things personally, least of all the rules of a game. I'm simply commenting on the sheer incongruity of many of golf's rules which oftentimes seem as contradictory as the "Old Testament/New Testament versions of the Bible.

Like I said, I play fairly and that's good enough for me and for those with whom I play. I'm simply making an observation more than anything else. And besides, it stirs a bit of controversy and debate and I find that quite enjoyable.


I love to argue!


-JP

The point is that it's not "silliness", it's the rules of the game. I'd be willing to bet that you could find equally "silly" rules in many other games/sports, but it still wouldn't make a particle of difference. The rules define the game you are playing, and without the rules, there is no definition, and without definition it's just a free-for-all.

Most of the complications in the rules have come about since the innovation of stroke play. Before stroke play became so popular, most golf was played at match play, and the rules only affected the individuals playing the match. Thus, if a question came up, it was settled on the spot between the players and play continued. The current complexity was necessitated by the need to protect the entire field in a stroke tournament, and all players had to be treated as equally as possible, considering the huge number of variables involved. Thus we have the Rules of Golf, the Decisions, the conditions of the competition, local rules, etc.

A foursome playing for fun on a Saturday morning are more in the lines of being an old fashioned match, even if they are playing stroke, and can decide for themselves what is right or wrong for their game. But if they don't play by the rules, then the round is not truly valid for any other purposes because they haven't protected the rest of the field, i.e. their handicap club, or other group that hasn't bought in to their special "rules".

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

I do however find myself rolling my eyes whenever someone steps in to quote chapter and verse some obscure amendment to an amendment of a decision of a rule which, in my opinion, is silly to begin with.
-JP

It sounds like your problem is you don't like being told you are not playing by the rules. Kinda like in the Shawshank Redemption when the character finally decided protesting his innocence was a waste of time, so the answer to the question "Why are you in here?" was, "My lawyer *** me."


In other words you are saying, "I don't like this silly rule and anyone who calls me on it is quoting some startched shirt citing an obscure amendment to an amendment of a decision and needs to be ignored."


You are free to have that opinion. And it is precisely what I meant by the inability to disginguish between the two types of rules questions. Neither is right or wrong, but they detract from the purpose of these boards which is to answer questions about what the rules are, not what they should be or how everyone plays them.

[JPsuff]

.


I'm not talking about throwing the rule book in the bay.

I'm talking about the hair-splitting of rules that makes them silly. For instance, the core of this thread revolves around a hypothetical situation wherein a player wishes to repair a pitchmark and another player objects to his doing so.

Why is this even an argument?

You put a dent in the green and you fix it - period.

I don't care if it's "Match Play" or "Stroke Play" or if it's the third Wednesday in August. If you damage something, you should fix it and I don't care who doesn't like that. I believe that the spirit of the game has been damaged by this endless revising of what were once simple rules. Like the Lift, Clean and Place rule. Now, whether that's a local rule or not, it's observed in tournament play on the PGA Tour and I think it's ridiculous. If it's raining, the ground will become soft and the ball will get dirty - that's life. Yet it's allowed and sanctioned by the USGA so in my opinion that throws out the entire "Hit the ball as it lies" doctrine and cheapens the game.

Or in my example of dropping a ball after hitting my shot into a water hazard. I drop the ball near the hazard within what I percieve to be the required clublength distance, I count a penalty stroke and I play on. How is that not following the rules? And if by chance someone decides to actually measure my drop area and it proves that I actually dropped the ball three-inches too far away from the hazard or five-inches too close to the hole, what's the big deal?
I'm assessing a penalty stroke to myself and from many yards away from the green, what possible difference can five-inches make? I'm trying to deal with my situation as quickly as possible and if I'm off by a couple of inches I hardly think the "field" will suffer irreparable harm.

Does anyone really believe that when Tiger had that crowd of spectators move that boulder for him that he was keeping with the spirit of the rules? Or was he behaving like a Philadelphia lawyer in bending those rules to their fullest degree in order not to have to chip out from behind that rock? Yes, he may have been technically correct, but was he acting within the spirit of the game? I don't think so.

Let me make myself perfectly clear on this: I do not object to rules. What I object to is the manipulation of rules in order to gain either an unfair advantage or to unfairly punish someone. But if someone is acting in good faith and in the process does not necessarily follow a rule to the letter, I don't see why they should be additionally penalized. Especially when I see the rules bent and deformed to accommodate priviledged players while the rest of us are told to toe the line.


-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.


You put a dent in the green and you fix it - period.
-JP

What if you put the dent in the green and I went to fix it and you did not want me to fix it?

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

What if you put the dent in the green and I went to fix it and you did not want me to fix it?

Why on Earth would I not want you to fix it?

I mean, I like to fix ball marks and all and I usually fix several when I'm on a putting green, but I'm not possesive about it. If you want to fix my ballmark, knock yourself out! It's one less that I have to fix.

Now if you went to mark my ball instead of waiting for me to do it, I'd have something to say about that because I'm kinda anal about such things. But ball marks? Fix as many as you like - including mine if it makes you happy.


-JP