clam fist
New member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,354
- Reaction score
- 13
Your right. That ain't complaining.
Rules of Golf: What's Your "Favorite" Stupid Rules?
JPsuff
Banned
Disagreeing with a rule and abiding by it are two different things.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the judicial and law enforcement arenas for example, who see some laws as "silly" but are bound by society to enforce them nonetheless. That doesn't mean that those laws can't or shouldn't be changed but rather that until they are they have to be upheld.
Golf is no different and even though I believe that there are many rules which are contrary, ambiguous or just plain silly, I am obliged as a player to abide by them nonetheless. But as others have said already, there have been changes made to the rules over the years and that demonstrates that the rules are not carved in stone and can be modified or even eliminated altogether.
To insist that because a rule is writ it must therefore always be, is too unyielding. Similarly, ignoring a rule because someone thinks it's silly is disrespectful to the game and to others who abide by its rules.
I think that those who make and/or enforce the rules of golf could use a lesson or two in common sense and in some cases, plain fairness and I think that there are several rules that could use an overhaul and I would like to see that happen. But in the meantime, as long as they exist, the only thing a serious player can do is to live with them unless and until they're changed.
A middle-ground approach is the "Local Rule" most of which are not recognized by the USGA / R&A but many of which are often helpful and in some cases exist to either speed play or to introduce a sense of fairness in certain situations and I see nothing wrong with those. But Local Rules rules such as "Lift, Clean and Place" (commonly used on tour) in my opinion, strike at the very core of the game and ought to be eliminated.
-JP
I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the judicial and law enforcement arenas for example, who see some laws as "silly" but are bound by society to enforce them nonetheless. That doesn't mean that those laws can't or shouldn't be changed but rather that until they are they have to be upheld.
Golf is no different and even though I believe that there are many rules which are contrary, ambiguous or just plain silly, I am obliged as a player to abide by them nonetheless. But as others have said already, there have been changes made to the rules over the years and that demonstrates that the rules are not carved in stone and can be modified or even eliminated altogether.
To insist that because a rule is writ it must therefore always be, is too unyielding. Similarly, ignoring a rule because someone thinks it's silly is disrespectful to the game and to others who abide by its rules.
I think that those who make and/or enforce the rules of golf could use a lesson or two in common sense and in some cases, plain fairness and I think that there are several rules that could use an overhaul and I would like to see that happen. But in the meantime, as long as they exist, the only thing a serious player can do is to live with them unless and until they're changed.
A middle-ground approach is the "Local Rule" most of which are not recognized by the USGA / R&A but many of which are often helpful and in some cases exist to either speed play or to introduce a sense of fairness in certain situations and I see nothing wrong with those. But Local Rules rules such as "Lift, Clean and Place" (commonly used on tour) in my opinion, strike at the very core of the game and ought to be eliminated.
-JP
- Admin
- #28
One can abide by the rules fully, and still make it a point that quite a few are fairly absurd in their opinion. That does not make them less knowledgeable, less serious, or think less of the game.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
I don't see them as archaic, but traditional, at least as far as is possible to still be in keeping with the modern equipment and courses. I don't see what's so wrong with a 400 year old game maintaining as much tradition as possible within the context of the modern world. I believe in a minimalist approach. You play the course as you find it and you play the ball as it lies as far as such a philosophy is possible, and you modify that philosophy only in case of dire necessity.
When you take that approach in applying the rules, they should start to make more sense. They attempt to limit the player's interaction with the ball to only moving the ball by way of making a stroke. Only when he finds himself in a situation where making a stroke is not reasonable or possible is he allowed to take another approach (i.e. lift and move, or substitute another ball). In many of those cases it will cost him a stroke for the privilege of getting out of such a situation and being allowed to complete the play of the hole. The necessity for documenting many of those rules came about with the invention of stroke play. Three quarters of the rules are not even necessary for match play. So if anyone really wants to play a traditional game, play a match. Touch the ball, add a stroke. Breach a rule lose the hole. Settle any disputes on the spot with your opponent, right or wrong the play continues and the decision stands. That's ultimate simplicity. (I know, it isn't quite that simple, but the true complexities for breaching a rule only apply in stroke play)
The ideal of following those principles necessarily varies with each course, thus the original creation of local rules to deal with course specific situations. Most of those original local rules have been incorporated into one or another of the regular rules in order to create a rule book which can be used universally. We still have a few local rules which can be applied in peculiar or temporary situations on a case specific basis, but the proliferation of such local rules is controlled by requiring the approval of the ruling bodies. Otherwise we'd have to learn a new rule book every time we played a different course.
How often should the rules be changed??? The commonest complaint you hear is that they are too complex. If they change them every year, or every 6 months (assuming that such a policy is necessary, which I disagree with), then all you do create more confusion than already exists. Even those who DO want to play by the rules would have to buy and study a new rule book for every revision (as we do now every 4 years). Besides, in case of actual need, they still have the option of writing a decision to address urgent matters in a timely fashion.
I guess you are right, we will have to live with our disagreements. My main bone of contention will continue to be that most complainers don't have any solutions, they just complain.
- Admin
- #30
While you dont see them as archaic, some do, that does not make them right or wrong, but merely their opinion on what the rules of golf are.
As for how often they should be changed. I dont think they need to set a date to "change rules", but I do think they need to set a date to "look over" rules every single year.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
They do. That is an ongoing process. Just because they don't publish a new rule book annually, doesn't mean that they ignore it. The USGA and the R&A both have sitting rules committees which continually review on course decisions, respond to questions, discuss philosophical issues, and generally maintain a continuing dialogue on the rules. Certainly when any controversial issue arises, they are quick to bring it to the table, and make the change promptly if they see an urgent necessity. That bunker raking issue a few years ago was addressed and a new decision issued within weeks of the incident. The current Rule 13-4 reflects the change which that incident inspired.
What they try not to do is to make any knee jerk changes which may prove to be unwarranted and require deletion again immediately. That has happened in the past, so changes are deliberately deliberate now.
- Admin
- #32
The rules committee according to the PGA gets together "every few years" and not every year to make decisions.
What some call traditional, others call archaic and just old. People should be able to enjoy the game of golf how they see fit. If someone wants to complain about the rules that they dont like, that is up to them. It does not make them any less serious or knowledgeable a golfer.
Some look down on others for what they wear (sandals, boots, jeans, etc). Others look down for rules.
WIth the lack of growth in this game and courses dying everywhere, its about time that the powers that be look at themselves and the actual consumers and find out what exactly will work to get more people playing.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
- Admin
- #34
That is great, but getting together to discuss the rules and then not revising them except every four years, is not exactly what is good for the game.
And again, I will say it.
What you consider tradition, others consider archaic and outdated. They can have a voice just like you can. and it does not make them any less serious or less knowledgeable.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
- Admin
- #36
Games change and sports evolve to bring more people into the game. I have my issues with certain rules, but am keeping them to myself at this time. We have an interview coming up with Mike Davis of the USGA and plan on going over those. At that time, I can give you my list of grievances. But I do have a handful of rules that I think are borderline absurd, and certainly outdated.
I believe the game of golf needs to worry more about bringing more people to the game and less about what many consider outdated tradition.
Chunkylover77
Proud JakeNation Member
Lets see if we can steer this thread back on track. The ball moving after you've addressed it rule is crap.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
I'll be waiting with bated breath to see how he responds. Should be interesting.
I don't see that any "outdated tradition" is a cause for people not coming into the game. Golf has lost much of its old fashioned elitist image in the last 20 years. You can easily see that at any municipal course in the country. I know that we get a completely eclectic mix of people from all ethnic groups and walks of life. I don't know how any change in traditional values would bring any more people to the course. As I see it, right now it's the economy which is far more to blame for any decline in the game.
- Admin
- #39
I could not disagree more. In another thread it was brought up about what keeps people away. Club Corp does a survey on it as well.
Number 1 is always cost.
But elitism and stuffiness are always in the top 3.
Its still considered a stuffy game and part of that is how it is perceived by the people coming to play.
Look at the average viewer with the PGA Championship. People are more angry about the rules, then the outcome. People were furious with how the course architect responded when asked. Its about an elite image and the average person with choices to make will shy away with that 9 times out of 10.
Fourputt
Head Rules Official
Your point of view is quite different from mine then. I play and work at a busy public course, and I see none of that elitism... not even an indication of it. If anything it's just the opposite. We go out of our way to encourage any and all who want to play. We have 3 courses which are each very different from each other, and each offers a level suited to one or another type of player. We have a relatively open dress code, which is, in my opinion anti-elitist.
I won't deny that there are courses which promote an elitist attitude, but it isn't that hard to avoid it if you just look around. Or maybe it is harder to avoid in a place like Florida. I don't know as I've only played there twice in my life, but in much of the country a municipal type of course is a very accepting environment for the casual player.
- Admin
- #41
I think when a company the size of Club Corp does a survey (international company), and the number 2 or 3 thing listed is elitism and stuffiness it says a little more than someone saying at their local course, they dont see it. Not disputing what you see, but apparently the norm is that people feel it exists. From the inside looking out, what you may find as traditional and normal, the average golfer may view as stuffy and elite.
For those that dont know them, Club Corp is one of the biggest there is.
Flooder
Active member
Far and away the dumbest rule/situation in golf is the divot in the fairway issue.
- If there's a tourney at a wet course and the ball might have some mud on it, they play lift clean and place in the fairway cause when you hit the fairway you shouldn't be penalized and any sane person realizes this.
- If a course has a bit of fairway where the grass has died they spray paint it white and play it as "ground under repair" / free lift. This is for the same reason - shot in the fairway shouldn't be penalized.
- Every night between rounds at a tourney the course staff "repairs" or fills the divots (implying that they were ground needing/under repair).
The flaw in this rule is so obvious it's laughable. As for Fourputt's criticism of this general subject; the counter argument is simple. Golf occasionally changes their rules. This proves that the powers that be sometimes realize that the rule was poor and needed to be changed. If it was inappropriate to ever criticize the rules, then no one ever would and the rules would never change.
- If there's a tourney at a wet course and the ball might have some mud on it, they play lift clean and place in the fairway cause when you hit the fairway you shouldn't be penalized and any sane person realizes this.
- If a course has a bit of fairway where the grass has died they spray paint it white and play it as "ground under repair" / free lift. This is for the same reason - shot in the fairway shouldn't be penalized.
- Every night between rounds at a tourney the course staff "repairs" or fills the divots (implying that they were ground needing/under repair).
The flaw in this rule is so obvious it's laughable. As for Fourputt's criticism of this general subject; the counter argument is simple. Golf occasionally changes their rules. This proves that the powers that be sometimes realize that the rule was poor and needed to be changed. If it was inappropriate to ever criticize the rules, then no one ever would and the rules would never change.
- Thread starter
- #43
I'm the ignorant, stupid, OP that Fourputt alluded too in his "learned" threads. First I called the fairway a fairway. I've heard other people refer to it as a "fairway". Golfers, professional and otherwise, also refer to that thicker grass on either side of the "fairway" as "rough". Or, "Oh s..t!"
And despite what you say it is my opinion, and that of many others, that a divot in a "fairway", is ground under repair. I also know what "through the green" is, and believe it or not, I know the difference between yellow and red stakes, what loose impediments are, and other rules stuff. As to my first point regarding spike marks what I meant to say is the spike marks left by a person or persons unknown who played the hole prior to one's arrival should be allowed to be tamped down.
Another example: you set up to your putt, "ground" your club, and the ball oscillates a millimeter. That's a penalty stroke. How dumb is that?
ps: Lee Trevino said the rules of golf should be able to fit on a match book cover.
Anyway, anyone have any other rules they find ridiculous?
The purpose of this thread was to have a little fun.
And despite what you say it is my opinion, and that of many others, that a divot in a "fairway", is ground under repair. I also know what "through the green" is, and believe it or not, I know the difference between yellow and red stakes, what loose impediments are, and other rules stuff. As to my first point regarding spike marks what I meant to say is the spike marks left by a person or persons unknown who played the hole prior to one's arrival should be allowed to be tamped down.
Another example: you set up to your putt, "ground" your club, and the ball oscillates a millimeter. That's a penalty stroke. How dumb is that?
ps: Lee Trevino said the rules of golf should be able to fit on a match book cover.
Anyway, anyone have any other rules they find ridiculous?
The purpose of this thread was to have a little fun.
Smallville
#ICanHitADraw
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 98,737
- Reaction score
- 531
- Location
- Kansas City, Kansas
- Handicap
- In Flux
OK, that's enough ranting, let's get back to topic.
Here's a doozy.
Stewart Cink was disqualified from the Zurich Classic in 2008 for one of golf’s quirkiest rules.
Cink’s ball had landed just outside of a fairway bunker and his setup planted his feet in the sand. That shot went array and landed in a greenside bunker. He played out of that hazard and went on to finish the round.
Cink’s infraction occurred when his caddie raked the bunker he stood in on the first shot. Rule 13-5 indicates that a player cannot test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard.
Since Cink stood in the fairway bunker he had technically “tested” it even though he didn’t hit out of the hazard. Had the caddie not raked that bunker, Cink wouldn’t have been penalized two strokes.
Also, Juli Inkster was dq'd for putting one of those weighted donuts on her club to warm up during a 30 minute wait. Swinging 2 clubs, that's ok. Weighted donut-outta here.
I contend that probably 90% or more of casual golfers don't play strictly by the rules of golf even if they did know and understand them.
I'm with whoever said all the rules should be able to be put on a matchbook cover.
Stewart Cink was disqualified from the Zurich Classic in 2008 for one of golf’s quirkiest rules.
Cink’s ball had landed just outside of a fairway bunker and his setup planted his feet in the sand. That shot went array and landed in a greenside bunker. He played out of that hazard and went on to finish the round.
Cink’s infraction occurred when his caddie raked the bunker he stood in on the first shot. Rule 13-5 indicates that a player cannot test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard.
Since Cink stood in the fairway bunker he had technically “tested” it even though he didn’t hit out of the hazard. Had the caddie not raked that bunker, Cink wouldn’t have been penalized two strokes.
Also, Juli Inkster was dq'd for putting one of those weighted donuts on her club to warm up during a 30 minute wait. Swinging 2 clubs, that's ok. Weighted donut-outta here.
I contend that probably 90% or more of casual golfers don't play strictly by the rules of golf even if they did know and understand them.
I'm with whoever said all the rules should be able to be put on a matchbook cover.
Slammin'SAM
Never a flatbelly
I am not sure if I have discussed this in the THP forums, but I once got a two stroke penalty (that I called on myself) for the action of a spectator that was totally beyond my knowledge and control. It was the most unfair absurd inequitable ruling I ever saw on the course in thousands of rounds and hundreds of tournaments, but the ruling was upheld by the USGA when I appealed it that far.
To keep a long story short, a spectator following my group stuck a club in my bag while my cart partner (the carts were required) had driven away from me. As soon as he returned and I was selecting my club for the next shot, I spotted the foreign club in with my 14 and removed it, and called the penalty. I never hit a shot while the foreign club was in my bag, and because the cart was required and my co-rider had driven it away from me, my clubs were temporarily beyond my control. My fellow-competitors in my group tried to have me not call the penalty, but I was sure the proper procedure was to call the penalty and appeal it to the committee. The penalty stood. I was penalized two strokes for the actions of a spectator (that innocently didn't want to carry the putter she had with her all day) that had absolutely no affect on the play of the game. Ridiculous ruling!
To keep a long story short, a spectator following my group stuck a club in my bag while my cart partner (the carts were required) had driven away from me. As soon as he returned and I was selecting my club for the next shot, I spotted the foreign club in with my 14 and removed it, and called the penalty. I never hit a shot while the foreign club was in my bag, and because the cart was required and my co-rider had driven it away from me, my clubs were temporarily beyond my control. My fellow-competitors in my group tried to have me not call the penalty, but I was sure the proper procedure was to call the penalty and appeal it to the committee. The penalty stood. I was penalized two strokes for the actions of a spectator (that innocently didn't want to carry the putter she had with her all day) that had absolutely no affect on the play of the game. Ridiculous ruling!
- Thread starter
- #47
That's one for the books, Sam.
solidkjames
Loves drowning golf balls
Having to play out of a divot needs to go, it's ground under repair. Grounding a club, rake etc. in a bunker needs to go because you can dig your feet in to build a stance. That right there is all the testing of the sand you need, just a pointless rule in general. Make the rule you can't ground your club at address in a bunker to improve the lie of the ball and that is much more fair and practical. That leads to not being able to touch anything loose in a hazard, the weed at Hilton Head is all that needs to be said, just an out right stupid rule, if you touch something during the swing there should not be a penalty and once the ball is out of the hazard there DEFINITELY shouldn't be a penalty of grounding a club. Not being able to fix pitch marks on the green until you are on it is about the dumbest rule in the game. If the green is damaged in anyway the player should be allowed to fix it, spike mark, balll mark or wild strand of grass or weed, anything that improves the course helps everyone and you shouldn't be penalized for some lazy asshat to fat to fix his damage. The ball moving while addressing it should have been thrown out in the past 20 years, in 1970 when they putted on shag carpet it was one thing, today's greens run upwards to 15 on a stimpmeter on downhill putts, any gust of wind can move a ball when you are putting on greens as slick as hardwood floors and unless you touch the ball how can it be called a stroke, just STUPID. And lastly the one rule that people break all the time is asking a competitor what club they hit, who cares? There are quizzes on the USGA website that I bet 1 out of 100 pro's could answer 100 percent of those questions, that to me is a set of rules that needs some serious modification.
One thing I would like to add, there are comments in this thread saying on a real player would know the rule etc. etc. If that was the case the PGA wouldn't hire men to follow around professional athletes who make a living playing this game if the rule book was easy to understand. When you have to have an official clarify rules for you then there is something wrong with the rules, the rules that people b*tch about most are usually the rules that have no use and take away from the fun. Last time I checked every game ever invented was done so to have fun, golf should be no exception.
One thing I would like to add, there are comments in this thread saying on a real player would know the rule etc. etc. If that was the case the PGA wouldn't hire men to follow around professional athletes who make a living playing this game if the rule book was easy to understand. When you have to have an official clarify rules for you then there is something wrong with the rules, the rules that people b*tch about most are usually the rules that have no use and take away from the fun. Last time I checked every game ever invented was done so to have fun, golf should be no exception.
Last edited:
ken419
Return of the Hack
Interesting story, Sam- thanks for sharing. I'm curious, though...what was this person's motivation for sticking a stray club in your bag?
ken419
Return of the Hack
Can someone clarify this one for me...are these things totally illegal, or was it accidentally left on and she ended up taking a stroke with it?