What's the Most Ridiculous Rule in Golf?

[Johneli]

In your estimation what is the stupidest rule/convention in golf?

[DIETER]

The 1st thing that comes to mind is that you can't fix a spike mark on the green. Also the rules pertaining to the removal of objects (i.e. a branch or pinecone) in a sand trap seem a bit strict. And the other one that sorta bothers me is you can't touch the green or the cup when you're showing your partner where to aim the ball before they putt.

[CristieKerr]

The signing your scorecard rule on the PGA.

[JPsuff]

.


I can't pick just one because I think that there are many rules which ought to be changed. So in a blatant violation of the spirit of this thread, I would like to list some rules that I think need to be either eliminated or modified.

• The rule that penalizes a player for having a gust of wind move his ball after he's addressed it (eliminated)
• The "double hit rule" [the T.C.Chen rule] (eliminated)
• The loose impediment rule (modified)
• The spike mark rule (eliminated)
• The "can't move the ball from a divot in the fairway" rule (eliminated)
• The "building a stance" rule (modified or at least more practically applied)

There are more rules I'd like to see changed or eliminated, but these stand out in my mind as being some of the more ridiculous ones.


-JP

[PA PLAYA]

Spike marks and divots would get my vote. I don't think players should be penalized for carelessness of other golfers.

[Wazmankg]

No Mulligans ? I mean, what's up with that ?

[C-Tech]

I like JP's list. I don't think he missed a thing.

[J.D.]

Out of bounds being stroke and distance.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Out of bounds being stroke and distance.

On a more serious note, this is one of mine too. I sympathize with the spike mark & divot rule haters, but I could just see the arguments about what's a divot and what isn't and Joe wanna-be fixing every single blemish in his 40' line.

[GolfSavage]

I'd like a little more leeway on the tee box on where I can place the ball. Right now, it has to be between the markers, no more than two club lengths behind, and no further forward than the forwardmost plane created between the markers. Not the exact specification, but I think it's correct. Anyway, there are times when a tee box has been chewed up, or worse yet they set it on a side slope (shouldn't tee boxes always be level?). Finding a nice place to tee the ball and get a good stance can be difficult within the current confines. I should be allowed to tee up anywhere on the tee box that is behind the markers, period. There may still be times when things don't work out, but overall it would be better.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

I'd like a little more leeway on the tee box on where I can place the ball. Right now, it has to be between the markers, no more than two club lengths behind, and no further forward than the forwardmost plane created between the markers. Not the exact specification, but I think it's correct. Anyway, there are times when a tee box has been chewed up, or worse yet they set it on a side slope (shouldn't tee boxes always be level?). Finding a nice place to tee the ball and get a good stance can be difficult within the current confines. I should be allowed to tee up anywhere on the tee box that is behind the markers, period. There may still be times when things don't work out, but overall it would be better.

Unless I'm playing tournament golf, if I find a tee box and markers in that position I play from the nearest flat spot behind the markers. If that happens to be more than 2 club lengths, too bad. I would never damage a portion of the tee box that is off limits due to overuse but I AM finding a flat spot.

[bignose]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The rule that penalizes a player for having a gust of wind move his ball after he's addressed it (eliminated)

Here's the problem with changing this rule. You address the ball and ground your club, grounding your club causes the grass to move your ball. But, you can just claim "it was the wind, it wasn't me!" How can anyone not standing right over the top of the ball know either way? For that matter if it is windy, there is a decent chance even you may not know. So, the rulesmakers made it simple to decipher. You take an address, and the ball moves, too bad for you.

Besides, the rulesmakers gave you an out in this rule. The definition of an address (outside of a hazard) is taking your stance and grounding your club. If it is windy enough for there to be a chance the ball will move due to the wind, don't ground your club. It is as simple as that

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The "double hit rule" [the T.C.Chen rule] (eliminated)

I dunno... I think that you, the player, not anything on the course, changed the trajectory of the initial shot. Not adding penalty strokes opens the door for abuse. I can imagine someone missing a short putt then redirecting it claiming that the redirection was just part of their follow through or something like that.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The loose impediment rule (modified)

Without knowing what modification you propose, this can be a tough one. I suspect it is in relation to Tiger being able to move a boulder. I tell you how I'd like to see the rule modified. Maybe one modification would be that the player must be able to move it by himself, I can see that being logical. On the other hand, I'd like to see more strict pace of play rules enforced, where if Tiger wants to have the boulder moved, he can get the aid of the gallery members, but the time it's going to take is going to cost the same amount of penalty strokes anyway, so he might as well hit over it with a wedge or take the unplayable lie drop.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The spike mark rule (eliminated)

This one I'm on board with, though it isn't quite the same problem it used to be with the banning of metal spikes from pretty much everywhere I play. But, there is the question of drawing a line, at what point can you say a misshapen tuft of grass is a spike mark or just a feature of the green? Most spike marks are pretty minor imperfections, and there is the whole rub of the green issue that say sometimes you don't always get a perfect lie or perfect line on the green. Though I can see the other side of the coin, too. You are allowed to fix the potentially massive amount of damage a ball mark left, but not allowed to fix a tiny little spike mark? It does seem odd to draw the line to separate the two.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The "can't move the ball from a divot in the fairway" rule (eliminated)

This is similar to the other ones above. Where do you draw the line? When does a divot stop being a divot? You can't specify exactly how old one is, can you? a divot is longer a divot after 8 hours? Or 3 days? Or 10 days? or what? This opens the door to call every depression or ridge or bump an "old divot" and allows free relief from it. That's nonsense... you have to take your lumps. You may not remember it, but your luck probably evens out. For every time you've come to rest in a divot, you've probably hit a tree that bounced the ball back to the fairway when you had no business being there in the first place.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.
*The "building a stance" rule (modified or at least more practically applied)

Again, without knowing the specific modification, it is tough to comment. Though, I suspect that this is in relation to players using a towel to keep their pants from getting wet. I can see that, there probably should be some discretion, but again, in order to make officiating as easy as possible, it is easiest to draw a clear-cut line and just say "Sorry. None whatsoever is allowed."

==============

Now, not to just be all negative, I am going to add one. In a bunker, you aren't allowed to ground your club. I agree with this, because you shouldn't be able to test the condition of the sand -- how fluffy, heavy, wet, deep, etc. it is. This is information you are only supposed to gather from striking the ball and observation. But, the rule isn't written to say "in a bunker" but "in any hazard" which will involve water hazards. So, in the same way, your club can't touch the surface of the water without incurring a penalty. But, I think that this is silly. The properties of water change so little with temperature that there is no significant change in consistency. Water is water, there is no difference from course to course or hole to hole, unlike sand bunkers. So, I think that it shouldn't matter if you accidentally touch the water, you don't gain any information which is why you aren't supposed to touch the sand.

[J.D.]

Say the course maintenence crews have gone around and filled all divots with a sand/grass seed mixture, and your tee shot lands in the middle of one. I say thats ground under repair and subject to a free drop.

[bignose]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Out of bounds being stroke and distance.

This one I'm in the middle of, too. Palmer's quote about how you can crush a ball right down the middle of the fairway, and hit a concrete yardage marker or sprinkler head, the balls takes that massive bounce and go OB despite you putting the ball exactly where it was supposed to be and now be hitting three from the tee versus swinging and completely missing and then be hitting two is very apt.

On the other hand, back luck is just part of the game. Like I said above, we remember the hard breaks, but rarely remember the good breaks. If it is inherently unfair to hit a sprinkler head and bounce OB, it is also inherently unfair to hit a tree that is OB and have the ball bounce back into play. Nevertheless, you wouldn't think of calling the stroke and distance penalty on yourself for that.

They actually have tinkered with this rule off and on. For some periods in the past, the penalty was just distance. I.e. you had to re-hit but it wasn't an additional stroke, too. Part of the reason I can see that this rule needs to be modified is the much more common use of OB on the interior parts of the golf course. OB used to be pretty much reserved for the properties that were completely off the golf course. You hit such a poor shot that you weren't even on the property anymore. But, especially with houses lining the fairways and routing courses through tighter urban spots, on some courses there are some really nasty OB areas. I can see this rule from both sides.

I'd also like to see some sort of leaf rule invoked for fall play. There are usually two weeks there where the leaves fall like rain, and no matter how often the groundskeepers get out, there are always leaves in some significant amount in the fairway. I hate the lost ball penalty in these cases -- especially compared to the pro game where they don't have to worry about that at all. No one running the tournament would let the leaves pile up and with their spotters, the pros hardly ever actually lose a ball. I know any rule where you get to drop near where you lost sight of the ball go into a pile of leaves is ripe for abuse. "Of course I lost sight of it here in the middle of the fairway, not over there under and behind that tree in the 3 inch rough." But, we all know that there are times when you know that ball wasn't tearing through the pile, it was tricking its way in, so the @%(@*ing thing is in there somewhere but of course, you can't find it.

[bignose]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Say the course maintenence crews have gone around and filled all divots with a sand/grass seed mixture, and your tee shot lands in the middle of one. I say thats ground under repair and subject to a free drop.

Right, but again, how to define when that is no longer ground under repair? When the first sprigs come up? When the sand has washed away? When it is half covered by grass? How full does it have to be? If you know that the course you're playing at fills its divots, then who is to say that every sandy or bare patch isn't also GUR? It might have been an old divot that didn't grow in right or washed away before the roots took. Unless you can draw a clear and unambiguous line, I don't see how you can enforce the rule without there being plenty of room for abuse.

There really are very few judgment calls when it comes to interpreting the rules. The only one I can immediately call to mind is whether a hole was made by a "burrowing" animal or not. You get free relief from a burrowing animal's hole but not from a non-burrowing one. Otherwise, the rules are pretty unambiguous, the ball is behind the line of the OB markers, it's OB. Behind the yellow stakes, it's in a water hazard. You can only life, clean, and replace on the green. Lost ball, there is no "dropping it where you last saw it" -- where that is can be up for some serious debate -- but going back to the last place you had it in play -- completely undebatable. Etc. etc.

The unambiguity is meant to to make interpreting the rules as easy as possible. Sure, it's not always easy, but they are trying to eliminate the need for judgment calls; they are trying to make it as easy as possible to interpret and follow the rules.

[Bigvivec]

We had a flood on the course last week and I played before the maintainence crews could fix things up...I played into a bunker only to find that the sand had been washed completely away, leaving hard red clay that was contoured like the face of Mars...anyway, my ball was lying in one of the crevases and I had to play from there as the area wasn't otherwise marked...didn't seem fair to me...

One the equipment manufacturers would like to see erased would be that 14 clubs to a bag rule...never really understood why that was in place...

[Johneli]

Mine's more of a convention than a rule: Have you ever thought how ridiculous it is that you have to watch not to step in anyone's line when on the green? Before you say I need a lobotomy please read on. Just ten minutes earlier 4 guys/girls were stompin all over your line! And probably scores of golfers were all over your line during the course of the day. Yet we have to go through complicated gymnastic moves to avoid stepping in a line that's been beat down all day! Think about it. Absurd!

[EdFromOhio]

Mine is pretty much going along with JP's rule, but goes a little further.

Bumping the ball at address and maybe even knocking it off the tee accidentally. C'mon. Practically anyone you play with will just say "tee it up again, I didn't see anything" because they know it's an overly strict rule. In competition, maybe. But someone who gets to play once a week is not likely to count that.

That's a good one, too - Bigvivec. 14 is a bit tight, 16 seems more reasonable.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by EdFromOhio

Mine is pretty much going along with JP's rule, but goes a little further.

Bumping the ball at address and maybe even knocking it off the tee accidentally. C'mon. Practically anyone you play with will just say "tee it up again, I didn't see anything" because they know it's an overly strict rule. In competition, maybe. But someone who gets to play once a week is not likely to count that.

That's a good one, too - Bigvivec. 14 is a bit tight, 16 seems more reasonable.

Unless you actually are attempting to strike the ball on the tee and put it into play, knocking it off accidently is not a stroke. Once a ball has been put into play, then accidental movements when addressing the ball can be called a stroke. A ball on a tee on the tee box is not in play yet.

[JPsuff]

OK, here's my take on these rules:

• The rule that penalizes a player for having a gust of wind move his ball after he's addressed it (eliminated)
  
  The argument about moving the ball by addressing it is valid (pressing the grass down behind it) so then modify this rule to eliminate the penalty only as it applies to a ball on the putting green. If a player addresses a putt and the wind moves the ball, how is that the player's fault? The player doesn't control the wind and even if he did, what possible advantage could be gained by directing that wind to move the ball an inch or two? I know the "Rules Committee" may find it hard to believe, but sometimes things are simply an act of Nature and there's no need to find someone to penalize for it.
  
  
• The "double hit rule" [the T.C.Chen rule] (eliminated)
  
  I suppose that a putted ball could be struck twice to redirect it (a neat trick if one could do it at all and without it being obvious to anyone watching) but to apply this rule in the way in which it was applied to T.C.Chen is ridiculous. Penalizing someone implies that that person was trying to "get away" with something or was trying to gain some kind of advantage but I hardly think that ol' T.C. did that intentionally. In fact, I'll bet that you could hand him a bucket of balls and ask him to replicate that shot and he couldn't do it again with ten buckets.
  Such a situation could best be described as an accident in the same way that a golf shot that hits a tree sometimes lands on the green and other times lands deeper into the woods. To penalize someone for being the victim of physics is, in my opinion, unfair. So modify this rule to apply only to a ball on the putting surface
  
  
• The loose impediment rule (modified)
  
  Yes, I'm referring to the "Tiger rule". As was ponted out by bignose, simply modifying this rule to read that only the player himself - with no assistance from any outside agency or without any mechanical assistance (a tree branch used as a lever, for example) may move the impediment. If the player is physically incapable of moving the impediment alone, it stays where it is.
  
  
• The spike mark rule (eliminated)