What's the Most Ridiculous Rule in Golf?

[OnePutt]

Johneli and CG8; It's nice to see that at least two of you can understand my point. For the rest of you, I was just trying to make a point. NOTHING SAYS GOLF IS FAIR, LIFE ISN'T FAIR. That stated, why can't the rules of golf be changed to make allowances for new technology? As for raking bunkers, I wouldn't have a problem with NOT raking bunkers, as long as they are not raked EVER. You can't have the bunkers raked over night for the first group to play, and then not rake them again. That would be unfair to everyone that plays after the first guy gets in a bunker. Of course this would never work for most bunkers, as most bunkers only have a few inches of sand on top of some other form of soil. So unless you want to be playing out of bunkers with clay and rocks instead of sand. not raking the bunkers will not work.
And I know greens are different than fairways, but again, I was just making a point. Why is is okay to fix a ball mark, but not move your ball from out of a divot. Both can happen to anyone, but only ball marks on the green can be repaired before the unlucky golfer has to play his or her shot. While I do understand those are the rules, I'm just saying if one can be fixed, than why not both?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

And I know greens are different than fairways, but again, I was just making a point. Why is is okay to fix a ball mark, but not move your ball from out of a divot. Both can happen to anyone, but only ball marks on the green can be repaired before the unlucky golfer has to play his or her shot. While I do understand those are the rules, I'm just saying if one can be fixed, than why not both?

I thought I made that point earlier. In the one case you are changing the location of your ball, in the other you aren't. The Rules strive to minimize such allowances in the attempt to hold to the principle of playing your ball from tee to hole without touching it. By not creating any special case for divots, they are simply holding to that principle. You are only allowed to take action to improve your line of play when the defect is on the putting green (and then only clearly defined defects), and in such case, and if the defect is near or under your ball, you are already allowed to mark and lift your ball, so that doesn't enter into the equation.

My point is that while they maybe seem a bit arbitrary, these situations do adhere to a kind of logic, the same base logic that all of the rules are derived from, and deviate from only as much as is absolutely necessary. I agree with those who say that for the divot hole, since there is no accurate way to specify or define when a repaired or partially regrown divot hole no longer qualifies as a relief situation, then in equity, no relief should be given.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

While I do understand those are the rules, I'm just saying if one can be fixed, than why not both?

Because greens are different.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Because there is a fine line. Address is as close as the player can get to the ball when playing. It is the most likely time when he may cause the ball to move and if he does it may not be perceptible. Some cases may be obvious to all,but some may not. The difficulty of determining if the player caused it to move is considerable and this rule takes the uncertainty out. Years ago many othere rules were what I call "no fault" rules. The player was penalized whether he caused the infraction or not....if a forbidden thing happened, he paid for it. Now some of those have been changed and I think it makes things more difficult....now the potential for arguments about causation
get people on edge and may not resolve the issue. No fault is the cleanest way to go. As long as everyone plays by the same rule, why should it matter if it is frustrating or unfair.

This rule has been on the books for a long time. I wouldn't look for a change.

That almost explains it, save for the fact that "hovering" the club mitigates fault and that in itself can present a cause for argument. The obvious reason for this is that it is quite possible to hover a club (let's say a putter) in such a manner as to have the sole of the club barely touching the tops of the grass blades (which by rule is not grounding). And since the grass on a putting green can be as short as 3/32 of an inch, it would be virtually impossible to either prove or disprove that a player was indeed holding the club above the grass rather than resting it upon the grass.

Secondly, the entire concept of hovering discriminates against those players who do not feel comfortable holding a club off the ground at address. Why should a person be forced to alter their routine or habitude in order to avoid a potential penalty while others who are accustomed to hovering a club needn't alter their setup at all?

Personally, I think the whole "hovering" debate could be rendered moot if the rules regarding address were simply changed to read that once a person assumes a stance over a ball, they are then deemed to have addressed. With such a modification, the the argument of whether one hovers or grounds a club is irrelevant. That would simplify things, in my opinion, and it would at least serve to render all players susceptible to the wind, not just those who ground their club.



-JP

[Johneli]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

This rule has been on the books for a long time. I wouldn't look for a change.

atticus; I take no issue with you at all, but this is what bothers me about golf and many golfers in general. Think about what football would be like without an introspective look at the sport and then making adjustments periodically. Ie. Instant replay, more stringent penalties for roughing passer etc.
Why should golf be any different? Why don't we analyze this game and look for improvements instead of just accepting everything that's come before as set in stone? Why have rules that defy logic just because they exist and have existed for some time? Why not let common sense dictate changes that will make newcomers to the game say,"you know what...that makes sense to me!"
So, with no offense intended, who cares if something has been on the books for a long time? I think it's time to start streamlining the game itself like we have the equipment.
Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Johneli

atticus; I take no issue with you at all, but this is what bothers me about golf and many golfers in general. Think about what football would be like without an introspective look at the sport and then making adjustments periodically. Ie. Instant replay, more stringent penalties for roughing passer etc.
Why should golf be any different? Why don't we analyze this game and look for improvements instead of just accepting everything that's come before as set in stone? Why have rules that defy logic just because they exist and have existed for some time? Why not let common sense dictate changes that will make newcomers to the game say,"you know what...that makes sense to me!"
So, with no offense intended, who cares if something has been on the books for a long time? I think it's time to start streamlining the game itself like we have the equipment.
Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?

The USGA and the R&A review, update, and change, the rules of golf on a regular basis. It's doubtful that they will ever please everyone. There are rules in every sport that make little or no sense to those that play them. Golf is no exception.

I've never understood the dropped third strike rule in baseball. It's grossly unfair to the defensive team yet its applied equally so there you have it.

[JungleJ]

Originally Posted by Johneli

Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?

We'd still be playing and enjoying golf, probably

[bignose]

Originally Posted by Johneli

atticus; I take no issue with you at all, but this is what bothers me about golf and many golfers in general. Think about what football would be like without an introspective look at the sport and then making adjustments periodically. Ie. Instant replay, more stringent penalties for roughing passer etc.
Why should golf be any different? Why don't we analyze this game and look for improvements instead of just accepting everything that's come before as set in stone? Why have rules that defy logic just because they exist and have existed for some time? Why not let common sense dictate changes that will make newcomers to the game say,"you know what...that makes sense to me!"
So, with no offense intended, who cares if something has been on the books for a long time? I think it's time to start streamlining the game itself like we have the equipment.
Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?

As said before, the rules are modified all the time. This past year has several rules changed -- changed for the better in my mind. I like that now you can lift your ball in a hazard for identification purposes and there is a penalty for hitting the wrong one. This made the rule the same across the whole course, and not different for being in a hazard -- there is now a penalty for hitting the wrong ball no matter where on the course you are.

But, a lot of these rules are there to protect the integrity of the game. The ball moving after you address it is a penalty on you because of the difficulty to determine the true cause otherwise. Players would be nudging the grass so the ball rolls to better lies all the time and then claiming it was the wind or just the grass settling. The door is too wide open for abuse. So, the rule is written to make it as easy as possible to make decision -- you took you address and the ball moved? It's a penalty, done.

Same thing with the divots in the fairway. Rather than having to decide how damaged the divot hole is, how old it is, how regrown it is -- basically deciding if it is a divot or not, the rules are written to make it as simple as possible. You hit your ball where it lies or take a penalty to move it. Done.

I tried to invite responses above, though no one took me up on it. I suspect that the rules makers actually would like to provide relief from divot holes. But, they further understand that just saying you get free relief from divot holes opens the door for lots of abuse. Any bare patch or ridge or depression or tuft of grass growing the wrong way will be called "an old divot" by an unscrupulous player, so they can get the perfect lie. So, the question I asked, and probably the question the rules committee would like to ask is, how do you define when a divot hole stops being a divot hole and goes back to just being grass? You can't define it by age, because who knows how long it really has been there -- are you going to put a clock or calender out on the fairway? You can't define it by amount of length of grass -- do you really want people counting or measuring the length of the growing grass out on the fairway? How do open the door to allow relief from divot holes without also blowing open the door for all sorts of abuse?

If you or anyone can answer that -- if you can define the line between divot hole and not divot hole very clearly and in a way that is very easily determinable out on the course -- then let's hear it. A very clear and easy definition would probably be of interest to the rules committees because then something could indeed be done. However, I think that you will find that the clear and easy definition is elusive, because if it was so clear and easy to define, it probably would have been done already.

The rules aren't sacrosanct. I think that you neglect to notice how many rules changes have been made over the years. But, the rules are also there to make refereeing the game -- on yourself in particular -- as easy as possible. That means minimizing the amount of judgment calls needed, because, let's face it, whenever there is a judgment call, people naturally lean toward the outcome they want. I don't think I have to give this example, but if you're out playing with a fellow competitor, do you really want to sit there and argue with him over every little bump or scrape or ridge in the fairway whether it is an old divot or not? I certainly don't. But, that's what this will turn into if you open these doors to the potential abuse. The rules are made so that you don't have to argue over things, at least as much as possible. The ball is either in bounds or out of bounds, there is no judging. The ball is either in a bunker or it isn't. The ball is either on the green or it isn't. The ball is either in the cup, or it isn't. There are no judgment calls in golf. You don't have to watch whether the ball lands fair or foul or for a strike or a ball or whether the runner beat the throw or not, like in baseball, or whether the receiver kept his feet in or the QB crossed the line or scrimmage before he threw, in football. Golf is very easy in this regard -- you walk up, find your ball, and see where it is. The rules of golf do not care how it got there, only where it came to rest. In this regard, it is an exceptionally easy sport to regulate, and the rules have helped that by eliminating all the judgment calls where both sides of the argument can be argued. Introduce relief from divot holes and no fault ball moving when you've taken you address and you introduce judgment calls into the game and you make it significantly harder to referee. I think the rules at the moment do an excellent job of eliminating as many judgment calls as possible and thusly make the game as easy to referee as possible.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bignose

As said before, the rules are modified all the time. This past year has several rules changed -- changed for the better in my mind. I like that now you can lift your ball in a hazard for identification purposes and there is a penalty for hitting the wrong one. This made the rule the same across the whole course, and not different for being in a hazard -- there is now a penalty for hitting the wrong ball no matter where on the course you are.

But, a lot of these rules are there to protect the integrity of the game. The ball moving after you address it is a penalty on you because of the difficulty to determine the true cause otherwise. Players would be nudging the grass so the ball rolls to better lies all the time and then claiming it was the wind or just the grass settling. The door is too wide open for abuse. So, the rule is written to make it as easy as possible to make decision -- you took you address and the ball moved? It's a penalty, done.

Same thing with the divots in the fairway. Rather than having to decide how damaged the divot hole is, how old it is, how regrown it is -- basically deciding if it is a divot or not, the rules are written to make it as simple as possible. You hit your ball where it lies or take a penalty to move it. Done.

I tried to invite responses above, though no one took me up on it. I suspect that the rules makers actually would like to provide relief from divot holes. But, they further understand that just saying you get free relief from divot holes opens the door for lots of abuse. Any bare patch or ridge or depression or tuft of grass growing the wrong way will be called "an old divot" by an unscrupulous player, so they can get the perfect lie. So, the question I asked, and probably the question the rules committee would like to ask is, how do you define when a divot hole stops being a divot hole and goes back to just being grass? You can't define it by age, because who knows how long it really has been there -- are you going to put a clock or calender out on the fairway? You can't define it by amount of length of grass -- do you really want people counting or measuring the length of the growing grass out on the fairway? How do open the door to allow relief from divot holes without also blowing open the door for all sorts of abuse?

If you or anyone can answer that -- if you can define the line between divot hole and not divot hole very clearly and in a way that is very easily determinable out on the course -- then let's hear it. A very clear and easy definition would probably be of interest to the rules committees because then something could indeed be done. However, I think that you will find that the clear and easy definition is elusive, because if it was so clear and easy to define, it probably would have been done already.

The rules aren't sacrosanct. I think that you neglect to notice how many rules changes have been made over the years. But, the rules are also there to make refereeing the game -- on yourself in particular -- as easy as possible. That means minimizing the amount of judgment calls needed, because, let's face it, whenever there is a judgment call, people naturally lean toward the outcome they want. I don't think I have to give this example, but if you're out playing with a fellow competitor, do you really want to sit there and argue with him over every little bump or scrape or ridge in the fairway whether it is an old divot or not? I certainly don't. But, that's what this will turn into if you open these doors to the potential abuse. The rules are made so that you don't have to argue over things, at least as much as possible. The ball is either in bounds or out of bounds, there is no judging. The ball is either in a bunker or it isn't. The ball is either on the green or it isn't. The ball is either in the cup, or it isn't. There are no judgment calls in golf. You don't have to watch whether the ball lands fair or foul or for a strike or a ball or whether the runner beat the throw or not, like in baseball, or whether the receiver kept his feet in or the QB crossed the line or scrimmage before he threw, in football. Golf is very easy in this regard -- you walk up, find your ball, and see where it is. The rules of golf do not care how it got there, only where it came to rest. In this regard, it is an exceptionally easy sport to regulate, and the rules have helped that by eliminating all the judgment calls where both sides of the argument can be argued. Introduce relief from divot holes and no fault ball moving when you've taken you address and you introduce judgment calls into the game and you make it significantly harder to referee. I think the rules at the moment do an excellent job of eliminating as many judgment calls as possible and thusly make the game as easy to referee as possible.

+1

[petermo]

One of the best lessons I ever had was watching Gary Player in about 1964. He'd hit his drive about 1 yard off the fairway on Durban Country Club's famous 5th hole into a terrible lie. As everyone knows Gary is a heck of a showman and was talking to his caddy and the gallery moaning about his "terrible lie" . I was walking with a former provincial player and wonderful golfer who had in hs time been a bomber pilot over Germany and I said to him " he has an awful lie". The response was unforgettable and has remained imprinted ever since ( bear in mind I was about 20) "He put it there!

At the end of the day golf (and life) is about responsibility - taking responsibility for one's own shots, taking responsibility for the places the ball lands and taking responsibility for solving the problem! We live in a world where everything is supposed to be fair - that's a dream world. Not everyone is 6'2" tall, not everyone has 20/20 vision, not everybody has an IQ of 160.

So your ball lands in a divot, get over it -YOU PUT IT THERE.

The measure of a person is not what he has but who he is - take responsibility and stop asking the R&A and USGA to make golf easier when it suits you!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Johneli

atticus; I take no issue with you at all, but this is what bothers me about golf and many golfers in general. Think about what football would be like without an introspective look at the sport and then making adjustments periodically. Ie. Instant replay, more stringent penalties for roughing passer etc.
Why should golf be any different? Why don't we analyze this game and look for improvements instead of just accepting everything that's come before as set in stone? Why have rules that defy logic just because they exist and have existed for some time? Why not let common sense dictate changes that will make newcomers to the game say,"you know what...that makes sense to me!"
So, with no offense intended, who cares if something has been on the books for a long time? I think it's time to start streamlining the game itself like we have the equipment.
Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?

It's not a case of never questioning, it's a case of accepting the governing bodies as knowing what they are doing, and of educating ourselves on the rules and their underlying principles to help us understand what the game of golf is.

You have said earlier that you question everything in your life. I cant imagine being so suspicious and cynical that I would feel the compulsion to do that. I question things that seem to need it, I don't take anything at face value without reason. Certainly question politicians... they ask for it in everything they do.

But for most things in life there is no reason to question. Certainly not golf... it's a game for Pete's sake. As for any game, the rules are what they are, and they are going to be established and set by some sort of controlling body. That body is going to know the aims and principles of the game they oversee better than you or I. I make an effort to study and understand the underpinnings of the game, but I don't profess to have the foundation that the members of the USGA Rules committee have. I don't always have to like the way every rule and every situation treats the player (especially when I'm on the short end of it), but I do have some understanding of why they are written as they are, and I accept the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the game.

Those who argue against these so called "ridiculous" rules have been given some good solid reasons for the treatment of those rules, yet they refuse to see the reasoning or accept the logic. Golf is a game, and like any game it is defined by its rules. Just like baseball is defined by its rules.

When I was boy we used to play several different forms of baseball and softball because we could rarely get together enough players to play the real game. We played a game called "Chicken Base" where ewe only used first base. We played "Workup" where there were only two or three players at bat, and you worked your way from right filed through all the positions to get the chance to be up, then you only stayed up until you made an out, then you were back in the outfield again. These games were similar to baseball, played with a baseball and bat, but they were most definitely not baseball.

By the same token, golf played by any other rules or principles isn't really golf, it just looks kinda like golf.

[OnePutt]

Fourputt; Can I assume you accept that all Sentors and Congressman know what they are talking about too? You are willing to accept that the usga knows more than you do, so it's only "fair" to assume you think all politicians know more than you do.

I on the other hand, think most politicians are more interested in what will put the most money in their own pocket than what's best for the people of this country. Have any of you ever noticed that most all, if not all politicians leave office with a lot more money in their bank accounts than they had when they took office? I sure have noticed it, and it's been going for for as long as I can remember.

As for not touching my ball before I get to the green, were it's legal to do so, I'm pretty sure I could move the ball a few inches to the side of a divot without touching it with my hands. Again, it's common sense, not just the OLD rules of golf. As someone else mentioned, if you want to play by the old rules, why are you using steel and graphite shafts in you clubs and not wooden shafts? Truth is, someone decided steel shafts was an improvement for the game of golf. Truth is, some of us on the site, believe moving a ball out of the divot in the fairway, would also be an improvement for the game of golf. You and others can make all the same old arguement for keeping things the same, but I'm not going to change my mind on this, and neither will the others that agree with me.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

Fourputt; Can I assume you accept that all Sentors and Congressman know what they are talking about too? You are willing to accept that the usga knows more than you do, so it's only "fair" to assume you think all politicians know more than you do.

I on the other hand, think most politicians are more interested in what will put the most money in their own pocket than what's best for the people of this country. Have any of you ever noticed that most all, if not all politicians leave office with a lot more money in their bank accounts than they had when they took office? I sure have noticed it, and it's been going for for as long as I can remember.

As for not touching my ball before I get to the green, were it's legal to do so, I'm pretty sure I could move the ball a few inches to the side of a divot without touching it with my hands. Again, it's common sense, not just the OLD rules of golf. As someone else mentioned, if you want to play by the old rules, why are you using steel and graphite shafts in you clubs and not wooden shafts? Truth is, someone decided steel shafts was an improvement for the game of golf. Truth is, some of us on the site, believe moving a ball out of the divot in the fairway, would also be an improvement for the game of golf. You and others can make all the same old arguement for keeping things the same, but I'm not going to change my mind on this, and neither will the others that agree with me.

Senators and Congressmen are real life..... Golf is a game. No common meeting ground. Game rules are set up based on arbitrary principles that have nothing to do with real life. When congress makes a mistake, the whole country pays, sometimes in dreadful ways. When the USGA makes a mistake, who cares?? When government makes a mistake, I have at least a small say in rectifying that mistake... i.e. my vote, and any effort I may make at lobbying others to vote with me.

At to the rest of your comment, I never said a I want to play by "old " rules. I want to play by "the" rules, now meaning those put forth in the 2008 Rules of Golf. And you can certainly move that ball 6 inches if you like.... as long as you add a stroke to your score for so doing.

I still can't understand why you fail to make any comment about Big Nose's very logical question. When is a divot no longer a divot? At what point are you no longer allowed relief, And how do you definitely tell a divot from a scrape by a piece of maintenance equipment... or any other irregularity in the turf? Give a clearly concise and well defined method of determining that.

The silence is deafening...

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I still can't understand why you fail to make any comment about Big Nose's very logical question. When is a divot no longer a divot? At what point are you no longer allowed relief, And how do you definitely tell a divot from a scrape by a piece of maintenance equipment... or any other irregularity in the turf? Give a clearly concise and well defined method of determining that.

The silence is deafening...

And that's why it won't and shouldn't be changed. There are several rules I don't think make sense and I've expressed my opinion on them and been admonished for my lack of knowledge & appreciation. But for the life of me I can't understand why this divot issue gets everyone's panties in such a bunch. It's not just here either. It's one that the pros most likely want to see changed(also the fixing spike marks prohibition). Is it sand mixture-filled divots or all divots. Does this really happen that often ? Is hitting out of divots really that hard ? How many strokes does landing in a divot actually cost you on a per round basis ? In the grand scheme of "rules I want changed" this isn't even on my radar. Give me a way to make a lost ball or OB cost me 1 instead of 2 anyday over this. The once per month or so that I land in a divot, I shrug and hit it again. The quality of shot isn't altered much... it may run a bit more if I'm lucky enough to hit the green but that's about it. I can understand the problem if it's sand-filled (mine rarely are), but if it's just some dirt what's the big deal ?

[OnePutt]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I still can't understand why you fail to make any comment about Big Nose's very logical question. When is a divot no longer a divot? At what point are you no longer allowed relief, And how do you definitely tell a divot from a scrape by a piece of maintenance equipment... or any other irregularity in the turf? Give a clearly concise and well defined method of determining that.

The silence is deafening...

Okay, you asked for a reply, so here it is.

If your ball comes to rest in any divot in the fairway, you can move the ball out of the divot, no closer to the flag, and within 1 foot of the original position of the ball. Any divot is to be defined as, "any hole in the fairway that looks like it was made by a golf club while hitting a ball". Final ruling on whether said divot is in fact a divot, will be determined by all members of the group playing that hole. Majority vote rules. If two players can't agree, an offical can be called in to cast the deciding vote.

Is that good enough for you? If need be, and if the USGA should ask me, I'm sure I could come up with a better description of exaxtly what is and isn't allowed, but I didn't want to take the time right now.

[OnePutt]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I thought I made that point earlier. In the one case you are changing the location of your ball, in the other you aren't. .

And again, you fail to understand my point. Why can't the same rules apply to the fairway as they do the green? And why can't you be allowed to move the ball in the fairway, when you can move the ball on the green? And YES, I know what the rule bood says, but that doesn't explain WHY, it only says you can or can't do something. It doesn't give a reason and it surely doesn't give a GOOD reason for why we need two different sets of rules for greens and fairway. Why can't they be the same? And don't tell me that it's the rules, and I have to live with them. I' don't accept that answer, I want a good answer, not an excuse.