Why do we Question?

[JPsuff]

.



Well, from now on when I part company with a fellow golfer, I will no longer wish him: "Fairways and Greens!"

I will now say: "Closely mown grass areas and Putting surfaces!"





I bet that'll catch on in a big hurry.





-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by coralpro

1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

How to play out of a divot is covered by Rule 13-1. Therefore, rule 1-4 does not come into play.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

How to play out of a divot is covered by Rule 13-1. Therefore, rule 1-4 does not come into play.

· removing or pressing down sand, loose soil, replaced divots or other cut turf placed in position, or

Not sure what in this part of 13-1 says it answers what I have questioned. I have seen nothing whatsoever in the rules that does. I do understand we all accept the play it as it lies but as I've shown there are areas in shortly mown areas that allow for the relief in certain situations. So either the rules do have flaws and irregularities in their application or one can assume to take the rules for what they say and apply equity to the situation. If one person played from a spot that had no divot yet he made one then in equity the next player at that spot should also be entitled to have a similar lie as the first, in equity. I believe the rule says you can't replace a divot before playing your stroke. We assume the rules mean for us to play out of the divot and that is the way we play it but the main thing I've argued is the equity factor. It has been pointed out that particular equity is only How the rule is applied to the situation to all golfers equally. My complaint has been the rules govern play as well and not just the wording of how the rule is used. I respect your knowledge of the rules and know you mean well and I hate to be the manure disturber but I point out the inconsistencies in the rules and how they apply them but many just want to accept they are the rules and that is that. We play by them and try to follow them to the letter to the best of intent but it doesn't mean they do not have flaws as to their rulings in certain applications. If they said play it as it lies and never allowed relief I could live with that. You do get good breaks and bad. The problem I do have is giving someone a good break or bad break by no fault of their stroke or because of their stroke. I know, I know, I should just play cards.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

·

I point out the inconsistencies in the rules and how they apply them but many just want to accept they are the rules and that is that. We play by them and try to follow them to the letter to the best of intent but it doesn't mean they do not have flaws as to their rulings in certain applications. If they said play it as it lies and never allowed relief I could live with that. You do get good breaks and bad. The problem I do have is giving someone a good break or bad break by no fault of their stroke or because of their stroke. I know, I know, I should just play cards.

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."

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I will end this by repeating the truism... "No man is so blind as he who will not see."

4-Putt - Perhaps you should take your own words to heart and recognize that you're not speaking to a rational person who understands your logic?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Diane

4-Putt - Perhaps you should take your own words to heart and recognize that you're not speaking to a rational person who understands your logic?

You may be right... I just can't see through the wall I'm banging my head against....

[coralpro]

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."

Yes I have but you fail to see it. Don't allow the rules to give relief in some circumstances due to a poor shot but yet not get relief from a good shot that got a bad break. Play them all as they lie or don't differentiate certain scenerios and not others. One either is responsible for the conscequences of their shot or they're not. But it shouldn't be arbitrarily stated one is and one isn't. That's for starters.

[bignose]

Originally Posted by Johneli

Putt me in JP and Coralpro's column:



It's just ludicrous to continue this conversation with people who can't see the inequity of a situation in which a golfer who hits the fairway has an (expected & earned) un-impeded shot, but takes a large divot. Then another player who hits the exact spot, has to strike the ball without the same advantage. Unbelievable!

I would love to argue this point in front of an impartial "jury of golfers." It would be a slam dunk of pure logic. THIS IDIOT RULE SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT WITH "blood-letting," leeches, and heresy trials.

It is just as ludicrous then to argue that you should be able to accept the benefits of good luck. Next time your drive hits a sprinkler head and takes a favorable bounce an extra 50 or 75 yards down the fairway, are you going to drop one club length away from the sprinkler head? A sprinkler head or cart path is just as man made as any divot. Next time your ball hits and OB stake and bounces back into play, are you going to take the stroke and distance penalty? A stake in the ground is just as man-made as any divot.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Yes I have but you fail to see it. Don't allow the rules to give relief in some circumstances due to a poor shot but yet not get relief from a good shot that got a bad break. Play them all as they lie or don't differentiate certain scenerios and not others. One either is responsible for the conscequences of their shot or they're not. But it shouldn't be arbitrarily stated one is and one isn't. That's for starters.

Good shots, bad breaks... bad shots, good breaks. In equity (?), it all balances,

Bye now.

[TwillDog]

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...

[Leaguegolf]

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...

You weren't around much during football season were you fourputt.

Do yourself a favor and get out while you can.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by TwillDog

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.

What is your authority for that statement?

[TwillDog]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

What is your authority for that statement?

Seriously? I have absolutely no authority on anything. I'm just a guy that likes to play the game. Sorry if my generality offended the legal senses... I'd like to think that if we had a rule that we didn't interpret correctly, at least we'd make an effort in good faith...

[petermo]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I can probably look up a therapist in your area to try and help you.

Remember, charity begins at home - see yours first!!

[petermo]

Originally Posted by TwillDog

Seriously? I have absolutely no authority on anything. I'm just a guy that likes to play the game. Sorry if my generality offended the legal senses... I'd like to think that if we had a rule that we didn't interpret correctly, at least we'd make an effort in good faith...

That's fair enough for me - particularly if you have rule book with you (as recommended) and you apply your minds to the situation. Too often one ends up with locker room lawyers who attempt to stamp their authority on players on the course and then have to resort to "Decisions on the Rule of Golf" after the game to attempt to justify some obscure interpretation. This does nothing for enjoyment.

My view on divots - life's a beach - develop the skills to deal with them and get on with it. There is nothing as rewarding as the look on your opponents face when you've stiffed it from 100 metres out of a divot.

[petermo]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Don't allow the rules to give relief in some circumstances due to a poor shot but yet not get relief from a good shot that got a bad break. Play them all as they lie or don't differentiate certain scenerios and not others. One either is responsible for the conscequences of their shot or they're not. But it shouldn't be arbitrarily stated one is and one isn't. That's for starters.

The first sensible remark you've made this week - proof that Chinese water torture works - now start to study the rules and try to understand why they have been framed the way they are - and I don't mean local rules which sometimes have no logic to them at all.

As far as "for starters" is concerned -----------------------------------------please save your 2c.

[Johneli]

Originally Posted by bignose

It is just as ludicrous then to argue that you should be able to accept the benefits of good luck. Next time your drive hits a sprinkler head and takes a favorable bounce an extra 50 or 75 yards down the fairway, are you going to drop one club length away from the sprinkler head? A sprinkler head or cart path is just as man made as any divot. Next time your ball hits and OB stake and bounces back into play, are you going to take the stroke and distance penalty? A stake in the ground is just as man-made as any divot.

Those are constant and part of golf course maintenance and design. A divot hole is a player-generated impediment!There IS a difference. In one instance you are "penalized by a negative bounce" for hitting a sprinkler head....'breaks of the game' because it's ALWAYS been there, is constant, and could be predetermined by walking around the course if you were so inclined. A divot hole could be generated by the player playing ahead of you and should not be made to negatively impact you in any way. The OB stake is a constant as well.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by petermo

My view on divots - life's a beach - develop the skills to deal with them and get on with it. There is nothing as rewarding as the look on your opponents face when you've stiffed it from 100 metres out of a divot.

Thank you - I'm glad someone finally said this. People here don't seem to understand there's no such thing as a "free lunch".

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

You weren't around much during football season were you fourputt.

Do yourself a favor and get out while you can.

I heard that!