Are the current Rules of Golf helping or hurting the game of golf?

[TripleBogieTim]

The current rules, as they stand, do not fit the modern game. Some, not all, should be readjusted. I don't think they are hurting the game but the lack of knowledge of the rules is. I know very few people that know the rules. They all know a version of a portion of the rule.

A good example is the red hazard rule. Most know two of the several option available when you do hit it the hazard. That is because there is no need to learn them as an average amateur. You can walk into any store buy a game and go play. Make it up as you go. The scary thing is that you will run into more than one person that shares the same version of the wrong rule.

So the Rules as we know them are not hurting the game but lack of knowledge is.

I would agree with this completely...most people don't know what all their options are in most cases...I play with guys all the time that lose a ball in an area not deemed a hazard and they don't understand the rule for a lost ball not in a hazard is stroke and distance...you must add one stroke and play the next shot from the spot that the last ball was hit.

Most guys I play with just drop a ball at the last point the ball was seen...which is fine for recreational play to keep up the pace, but incorrect according to the rules.

As you said most dont understand why one hazard is marked red and one marked yellow and what their options are when the come to rest in one of those hazards.

The biggest mistake I see when making drops when a ball goes into a hazard is everyone uses the flight of the ball to determine where they can drop when it's actually a line from the pin to the point the ball crossed the line of the hazard that you use.

 

[Xt1ncT-NZ]

Now that (highlighted) I can see as a rason for "exceptional case" made to determine waiving the DQ because that doesnt have to be considered building a stance or at least it could be argued. The thing with tiger is that there is no argument. To me, if they impose the penalty then they must impose it all or dont impose any of it. Nothing exceptional about it.

The second part if it were a no name. Who knows but would of been interesting. On that very note - I'd like to know how they gave the kid the delay penalty while I watched J. Day stare his friggin ball forever, then reset and then do it again forever as I mentioned earlier. Its amazing how they tracked the kids time but never cought tigers mistake. Now, i ask which one of those has the greater impact on the game results? I can picture my own child at 14yrs probably crying after the embarrassment of that on a stage like this. Pace of play been issue forever and a 14 yr old (on this stage) needed to be used to help enforce it? It is what it is but I mean come on.

Sigh.

The exceptional part is that the television viewer called in whilst the round was in progress. The committee reviewed it and deemed everything ok.

It was not until his interview afterwards that they thought they should look again. What makes it exceptional is that the committee realised they should have discussed it with him before he signed his card to make sure everything was ok. That they didn't meant they could use the new rule as it was now their error and they applied the correct penalty and waived the DQ.

Not really that hard to understand.

As to the second part - if it were a no name he probably wouldn't have been on TV so the call in wouldn't have happened.

The rules are there to protect the field - that some players are on TV much much more than others meant they brought the new rule in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xt1ncT-NZ]

In regard to the rules - they are fine. Nothing wrong with them at all - you just need to know them. Especially if you play in official competitions. Plus on this day of smartphones you can get them as an APP.

This actually helped a playing partner in match play a couple of years ago.

We were playing match play against another club (singles) and he teed up ahead of the markers. He smoked his drive and his opponent tried to call loss of hole. So I checked the rules and in match play he just has to re-tee with no penalty.

The point beig if you play this marvelous game learn the rules and d/l the app so you have them with you all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tgtt]

In regard to the rules - they are fine. Nothing wrong with them at all - you just need to know them. Especially if you play in official competitions. Plus on this day of smartphones you can get them as an APP.

This actually helped a playing partner in match play a couple of years ago.

We were playing match play against another club (singles) and he teed up ahead of the markers. He smoked his drive and his opponent tried to call loss of hole. So I checked the rules and in match play he just has to re-tee with no penalty.

The point beig if you play this marvelous game learn the rules and d/l the app so you have them with you all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aren't smart phones illegal???

 

[Xt1ncT-NZ]

Aren't smart phones illegal???

No - GPS APPs can't be used in competition because smartphones also have access to Internet, weather etc. but if you're not using the GPS app and only bring it out for the rules you're fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tgtt]

No - GPS APPs can't be used in competition because smartphones also have access to Internet, weather etc. but if you're not using the GPS app and only bring it out for the rules you're fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the difference? If you're using it for rules it still has access to the same info it would using a GPS app.

 

[Xt1ncT-NZ]

What's the difference? If you're using it for rules it still has access to the same info it would using a GPS app.

You're right, they do. However the rules of golf do not outlaw smartphones.

They outlaw GPS applications on devices that have access to Internet etc.

At least that's my understanding. If you are unsure just get a rule book and carry it in your bag. We get one free each year with our membership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xt1ncT-NZ]

The rule in question:

5. Distance-Measuring Devices (Rule 14-3)

During a stipulated round, the use of any distance measuring device is not permitted unless the Committee has introduced a Local Rule to that effect (see Note to Rule 14-3 and I; Part B; Section 9).

Even when the Local Rule is in effect, the device must be limited to measuring distance only. Features that would render use of the device contrary to the Local Rule include, but are not limited to:

the gauging or measuring of slope;
the gauging or measuring of other conditions that might affect play (e.g. wind speed or direction, or other climate-based information such as temperature, humidity, etc.);
recommendations that might assist the player in making a stroke or in his play (e.g. club selection, type of shot to be played, green reading or any other advice related matter); or
calculating the effective distance between two points based on slope or other conditions affecting shot distance.
Such non-conforming features render use of the device contrary to the Rules, irrespective of whether or not:

the features can be switched off or disengaged; and
the features are switched off or disengaged.
A multi-functional device, such as a smartphone or PDA, may be used as a distance measuring device provided it contains a distance measuring application that meets all of the above limitations (i.e. it must measure distance only). In addition, when the distance measuring application is being used, there must be no other features or applications installed on the device that, if used, would be in breach of the Rules, whether or not they are actually used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scrap Iron]

I have to admit I don't really know the rules very well. I have never looked at a rule book so what I do know I have picked up along the way. I don't play in tournaments but I do play honest so if I'm not sure I will ask a playing partner and I find most of the time they don't know either but we find a meeting place. I wil confess to the fact if I lose two off the tee and a group behind me coming up I will just drop a ball near the person I'm playing with as I don't want to hold up the course.

 

[rollin]

What it exceptional is that they had the opportunity to discuss it with Tiger and impose the penalty before he signed his card and they chose not to do so. For that omission they took on part of the blame. If they had investigated it more thoroughly in the first place, the penalty would have been 2 strokes. Since it only became a DQ issue because of their hasty ruling, they were warranted in waiving the DQ.

I ask, Do they have to discuss breaking a rule with a player prior to handing in the card? The harrington thing is different because he was unaware his ball moved but still played by the rules. Tiger failed to play by the rules. If a player breaks a rule doest the ruling committee have to discuss it with the player prior to card signing?

 

[blugold]

I ask, Do they have to discuss breaking a rule with a player prior to handing in the card? The harrington thing is different because he was unaware his ball moved but still played by the rules. Tiger failed to play by the rules. If a player breaks a rule doest the ruling committee have to discuss it with the player prior to card signing?

That's the idea. But that isn't what happened, which is part of the exceptional case.

 

[Fourputt]

I ask, Do they have to discuss breaking a rule with a player prior to handing in the card? The harrington thing is different because he was unaware his ball moved but still played by the rules. Tiger failed to play by the rules. If a player breaks a rule doest the ruling committee have to discuss it with the player prior to card signing?

No, they obviously aren't required to interview the player, because they didn't in this case. They get such call-ins during every tournament and most are never mentioned unless they determine that a breach has actually occurred. If a ruling is made which turns out to be incorrect, causing an issue like it did with Tiger, then they have 33-7 to authorize them to waive disqualification.

If there had been no call in to prod the committee to review the incident before Tiger signed his card, and if then Tiger made the same statement, he would have been disqualified. He would have lost his safety net because then the full responsibility would have been on him alone.

 

[rollin]

What it exceptional is that they had the opportunity to discuss it with Tiger and impose the penalty before he signed his card and they chose not to do so. For that omission they took on part of the blame. If they had investigated it more thoroughly in the first place, the penalty would have been 2 strokes. Since it only became a DQ issue because of their hasty ruling, they were warranted in waiving the DQ.

Sigh.

The exceptional part is that the television viewer called in whilst the round was in progress. The committee reviewed it and deemed everything ok.

It was not until his interview afterwards that they thought they should look again. What makes it exceptional is that the committee realised they should have discussed it with him before he signed his card to make sure everything was ok. That they didn't meant they could use the new rule as it was now their error and they applied the correct penalty and waived the DQ.

Not really that hard to understand.

As to the second part - if it were a no name he probably wouldn't have been on TV so the call in wouldn't have happened.

The rules are there to protect the field - that some players are on TV much much more than others meant they brought the new rule in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they obviously aren't required to interview the player, because they didn't in this case. They get such call-ins during every tournament and most are never mentioned unless they determine that a breach has actually occurred. If a ruling is made which turns out to be incorrect, causing an issue like it did with Tiger, then they have 33-7 to authorize them to waive disqualification.

If there had been no call in to prod the committee to review the incident before Tiger signed his card, and if then Tiger made the same statement, he would have been disqualified. He would have lost his safety net because then the full responsibility would have been on him alone.

I dont see any reason for a sarcastic "sigh" simply because I have different thoughts about the subject and I can understand why they said they did what they did but that doesnt mean I have to think they made the correct call. I am also not alone in this too. And just in case anyone may thought, I am also not any kind of tiger hater at all so please dont think that has anything to do with it.

There is a big difference IMO between being unaware and/or not knowing a ball moved (like harrington) vs playing the ball the wrong way even if unaware it was a rule breaker. One is an innocent accident and the other is not knowing and/or not playing by the rules which is 100% the players responsibility. I think we can agree on that and can agree the 2 stroke penalty was the correct one for the actual act.

But discussing something with a player that he didnt realize happened is different from discussing a players failure to play by the rules. That is where we obviously know that Tiger failed and what makes it completely different. If this were another P. harrington situation then thats where consideration for the DQ could or should be waived.

If they are not going to forgive Tiger for not playing by the rules than they shouldnt be forgiving him for handing in an incorrect card. Its not like when Harrington's ball unknowingly moves and he still played by the rules and therefore a discussion situation could arise prior to handing in the card and if its all broght up later on after the fact then waiving a DQ may still be warranted. But Tiger (simply put) failed to play by the rules. They are acknowledging that fact and it doesnt have to be discussed before handing in the card. Its his responsibility and if its all brought up later on after the fact and then is acknowledged and assesed, then by waiving the DQ they are at the same time not completely acknowledging it. Its contradicting to do that. You can not acknowledge one without the other IMO. Had they decided it was not legal, they didnt have to say anything prior to card signing and tiger would have been DQ'd.

It would have been best to just say it was missed by him and us as well and its too late and do nothing. If they thought the drop was legal intitialy (which they did)then they should have not done anything. If they (prior to card signing) determined it illegal then he would have been DQ'd if his card didnt reflect it. They are not obligated to discuss it with him before hand so no matter when they decided to call the penalty for breaking a rule it shouldnt matter.

the are applying the waive of DQ ruling in the wrong mannor. It doesnt seem to me thats what it was meant for. Whats to stop players from breaking rules and then pleating "i had no idea I broke a rule" . If a rule is broken and they dont catch it then that should be it. It should end right there. It should be over. If they allow it to continue after the fact then they must also allow all of it to continue after the fact even if that means DQ. Like i said, it would be different in the case what harrington did because he still played by the rules but just never knew his ball moved. Then I can see the waive of DQ. But Tiger didnt play by the rules and clearly broke them. If they asses it even after the fact then they must asses all of it or dont assess it at all. He should not get the break simply because they didnt catch it earlier because they were not obligated to tell him anyway. And to boot, If they did tell him before hand, it would not have been fair to the others who may have scored thier cards with any accounted for penalties.

They used thier right to waive but it was not done for the correct reasons. If they want to say they screwed up then they must not have done anything and say "sorry but we screwed up". "We didnt catch it and its too late". But insteda they say "Oh but wait, we now (after the fact) catch it so hes gonna get the penalty because he didnt play by the rules but we're gonna look past the fact he handed in the wrong card". It just doesnt fly. Its not the correct thinking. And just because they determined this doesnt mean they did the correct thing for the right reasons.

 

[Fourputt]

I give up. You can't seem to understand what happened or why it was done and you refuse to believe the explanation that what was done was completely correct and proper under the rules of golf. You are going to have a hard time playing if you refuse to believe anything that anyone tells you about the rules, no matter how well versed they may be. If you read the interview with Fred Ridley which I posted a link to earlier, you have a look right inside of the committee and you can see the exact timeline and process by which this issue arose. If that doesn't convince you, then I'm done with you. You are arguing with no foundation and if you refuse to believe the truth, then there is no sense continuing this battle.

 

[Hawk]

Love the downtalking in here. Classy stuff!

 

[Fourputt]

Hey, I uptalked to him until I'm blue in the face. If he can't take the truth explained as concisely as it can be made, then what else is there to do?

 

[Hawk]

Drop it a really long time ago?

 

[Fourputt]

Drop it a really long time ago?

Why not tell him the same thing? Why jump on me?

 

[Hawk]

Some things never change. Forget about it.

 

[Richard Rodgers]

You're right, they do. However the rules of golf do not outlaw smartphones.

They outlaw GPS applications on devices that have access to Internet etc.

Quite true the rules of golf do not outlaw smartphones as such. Forget about GPS on them as that is effectively now banned as darn near all smartphones have weather/temp etc access by default and whether you access it or not the potential is there and that is the reason for them being illegal for comp play if they contain apps/inet access of this nature.

During a round of golf you are however legally allowed to use your smart phone(if allowed by the golf club) to call and/text, check the footie scores or even watch some porn. However, as soon as you fire up your weather app, temp app, humidity app or compass you are in breach of the rules as any info of this nature can be used in conjunction with any other GPS/Laser device to alter your choice of club etc even if you were checking to see what the weather would be like in two weeks time for your break in the Bahamas.

Yes we all know that for the average Joe knowing the wind strength and temp at the nearest weather station that may be 15 miles away is not much use at all and won't make any difference to a golfers play of the hole. In fact it may even make it worse. But those are the rules and we have to abide by them.

 

[rollin]

Fourputt - I thought part of what we do here on THP is discuss different views on things. I thought it supose to be educational and entetaining at the same time. I am not in a fight. I never viewed it that way or written words as such. We are disagreeing here and I could have also written with frustration and personal intent that I give up on you, but I didnt know thats what this called for. When, how and why did disagreeing ever mean there is a fight or warrant any personal comments.

I did read the interview prior to my last post and i still do not like the way they handled it. The truth about how things were handled doesnt mean I or anyone has to agree with it just because he gave explanations. I know there are plenty out there who do not still agree with it. That doesnt make them or me some kind of bad apple nor should it get under your skin to point of becoming personal. Had they made a decsion similar to one of what i suggested and explained why, then I wonder how many who agree now may also had agreed with that one.

I am seeing and feeling something different about it. Iether I am not being understood correctly or am having trouble getting it out in writing or I may be very well understood but many including you still may not agree with me. And thats OK. We are allowed. In iether case that is fine and doesnt make anyone a criminal. If anything it should just spark further conversation on the forum with no harm done to anyone. If the conversation becomes exhausted because ther are no more points on iethr side then we can just say something like "it seems we obviously disagree on this" or " sorry but i dont think we'll agree on this and not sure how else to state my points" or whatever. When something is said and/or something realized differently by me that makes me change my mind then I'll feel differently. It shouldnt get under your skin because I dont. I dont hink iether one of us is puttng our head down at night losing sleep over this. Its just a discussion on THP forum.

 

[TripleBogieTim]

Love the downtalking in here. Classy stuff!

You be quiet!!

 

[Fourputt]

Fourputt - I thought part of what we do here on THP is discuss different views on things. I thought it supose to be educational and entetaining at the same time. I am not in a fight. I never viewed it that way or written words as such. We are disagreeing here and I could have also written with frustration and personal intent that I give up on you, but I didnt know thats what this called for. When, how and why did disagreeing ever mean there is a fight or warrant any personal comments.

I did read the interview prior to my last post and i still do not like the way they handled it. The truth about how things were handled doesnt mean I or anyone has to agree with it just because he gave explanations. I know there are plenty out there who do not still agree with it. That doesnt make them or me some kind of bad apple nor should it get under your skin to point of becoming personal. Had they made a decsion similar to one of what i suggested and explained why, then I wonder how many who agree now may also had agreed with that one.

I am seeing and feeling something different about it. Iether I am not being understood correctly or am having trouble getting it out in writing or I may be very well understood but many including you still may not agree with me. And thats OK. We are allowed. In iether case that is fine and doesnt make anyone a criminal. If anything it should just spark further conversation on the forum with no harm done to anyone. If the conversation becomes exhausted because ther are no more points on iethr side then we can just say something like "it seems we obviously disagree on this" or " sorry but i dont think we'll agree on this and not sure how else to state my points" or whatever. When something is said and/or something realized differently by me that makes me change my mind then I'll feel differently. It shouldnt get under your skin because I dont. I dont hink iether one of us is puttng our head down at night losing sleep over this. Its just a discussion on THP forum.

I have explained the rule over and over, but you still argue the point. The rule is the law in this case. You still insist that something else applies. But what you say is contrary to the rule. It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The facts and the chronology lead directly to the ultimate outcome. The committee did what it thought best in the first review (when they reviewed the video before Tiger finished his round), and then they did the only thing that was equitable when more information came to light (meaning when Tiger condemned himself in his interview). We can look at it in hindsight and say so and so should have done such and such, but if you look at it as it unfolded, they did the only thing they could.

 

[rollin]

it wasnt simply just a rule in balck and white. Sure the actual offense and the 2 stroke pen is black n white. But there was more. There was also some decision making to be done here as well and that could have gone differently IMO. They didnt only have one option when they made the decisions they made and i dont think they made the right one regardless of what they explained.
It is obvious we arent going to agree on this and I'm not saying it to be a wise guy because of the recent postings. Its just the truth right now. But if I see or understand something that causes me to feel different and change my view I will surely and gladly be the first to say so. Its just not sitting well with me right right now.

 

[Bags]

So I believe, based on what I've been reading, that the rules can be quite confusing and it would be beneficial to have them simplified! They don't necessarily help or hurt the game of golf, they simply confuse a bunch of us!