We've launched the new forums! Read more here

if we were not allowed to play other fairways or leave the design of the hole

If i was not allowed to play from another fairway then i wouldn't have been playing much golf today
 
Smallville said:
So blue stakes are a good solution to bad deisgn, but white stakes are a poor solution?
Click to expand...

Who says bad design? Just a way to determine whats what just like any other stakes. And white stakes are for their own reason.
 
On 99% of the courses I play, playing a different fairway would never offer an advantage. I have no problem with someone intentionally playing a different fairway if they can. My home course growing up had one dogleg par 5 where this could be done but it required a 260 yard carry and very often you still wind up in a bunker or thick rough. I honestly avoid courses with a lot of close adjacent fairways as in high school I was struck by a golf ball on the fly three times on those types of courses!
 
rollin said:
I think your confusing the two issues here. OB stakes are for areas that generally they don't want you entering. Weather private property, dangerous landscapes, wildlife protected, etc.. I never said the white stake system for OB's is what would be required here. OB carries the heaviest penalty vs red or yellow and even though I don't agree(but another subject) you can see why. Because they don't want you there.

Perhaps another color system (say blue), and different kind of penalty perhaps to. Picture two holes along side each other. You have two fairways then each fairway has its specific width of rough and then after that they are separated by perhaps about 100' or 30 yards ( just for example) of tree line, fescue, weeds, whatever. You put blue stakes at edge of rough and beginning of tree or fescue line and do the same on the other side for the other hole no matter the width of this area. You declare the (100' or so in this case) of this space between the stakes as neutral ground.

Ball goes in from either hole and its playable or lost or whatever it may be normally been. Once it crosses the second set of stakes onto the other holes rough or into its fairway it is now considered completely in the other holes playing field and the hypothetic rule would now apply. Perhaps would be drop and stroke from point where ball first crossed into neutral territory from the original hole. May be treat it like a ball found in the woods and cant hit it out so you take a stroke and a drop. Whatever the penalty might be doesn't really matter but this wouldn't be so hard to do.

So it can be done and it can be figured out. Just a matter of (for this debate) weather or not one feels this could have been a rule or should be a rule.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should have been, nor should it ever be, a rule. As I mentioned before, course designers already have all the tools they need if they don't want players to be allowed to play from different fairways.
 
rollin said:
Who says bad design? Just a way to determine whats what just like any other stakes. And white stakes are for their own reason.
Click to expand...

I thought you did but it was kobey. Forget that post!
 
Mulligan9111 said:
I don't think it should have been, nor should it ever be, a rule. As I mentioned before, course designers already have all the tools they need if they don't want players to be allowed to play from different fairways.
Click to expand...

your opinion that you wouldn't want it is fine and understood that you dont feel it should be that way and that's all perfect and dandy. But when it comes to designers. Sure they can do some things if finances and acreage allows but the rules can still be made whatever the powers to be (in golf) decide them to be and not dictated by course designers.
 
rollin said:
your opinion that you wouldn't want it is fine and understood that you dont feel it should be that way and that's all perfect and dandy. But when it comes to designers. Sure they can do some things if finances and acreage allows but the rules can still be made whatever the powers to be (in golf) decide them to be and not dictated by course designers.
Click to expand...

And I am saying that the difficulty in writing that rule so there was no grey area and it was easy to understand and implement would be near impossible.
 
blugold said:
And I am saying that the difficulty in writing that rule so there was no grey area and it was easy to understand and implement would be near impossible.
Click to expand...

Your probably right Blu . But I wouldn't think it be all that more difficult than other things. People keep bringing up many hypothetical "what if" things in the thread and I am merely trying to hypothetically answer them. Some of the things don't even play into the actual rule itself and it goes off sideways sometimes. But nothing about the current rule book is so very easy anyway. Many on THP have expressed this on very many occasions. If such rule existed I'm sure it could get complicated when concerning all the scenarios that may arise. But probably not any more so than others in the book now and all the rules to cover all the different scenarios directly or indirectly related to them. In one sense they're all fairly simple and yet very complicated at the same time. People complain of it all the time. I don't think this would be too much different.

I'm not insisting everyone agree with me but just trying to answer all the side questions and scenarios people are putting to me about such a rule. Such a rule sounds idiotic to some people and that's fine. Some find the theory of it understandable even if they wouldn't want it to exist and just maybe some might feel it should have been a rule IDK. It all good.
 
They actually marked one hole for the recent LPGA tournament which had two fairways ran parallel in a way making the adjacent fairway on one of the holes OB. It was not OB coming back the other way, however. The officials knew on the hole they marked there could be an advantage to play from the other fairway and wanted to prevent that.
 
I do it everytime I play TPC River Highlands. On #4, I smoke it dead right into the 3rd fairway. I then can hit an easy short iron into the green, eliminating the traps. Par or better everytime.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
 
bigdaddy said:
I do it everytime I play TPC River Highlands. On #4, I smoke it dead right into the 3rd fairway. I then can hit an easy short iron into the green, eliminating the traps. Par or better everytime.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Cheater!!! :nono:
 
bigdaddy said:
I do it everytime I play TPC River Highlands. On #4, I smoke it dead right into the 3rd fairway. I then can hit an easy short iron into the green, eliminating the traps. Par or better everytime.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have a good plan. I just couldn't do it on purpose. I might go at it a little harder with my tee shot knowing I will be in great shape if I screw it up, but I am aiming for the correct fairway.
 
rollin said:
your opinion that you wouldn't want it is fine and understood that you dont feel it should be that way and that's all perfect and dandy. But when it comes to designers. Sure they can do some things if finances and acreage allows but the rules can still be made whatever the powers to be (in golf) decide them to be and not dictated by course designers.
Click to expand...

You are talking about creating a rule where they already have the rules and tools necessary to solve said problem. There doesn't need to be blue stakes or whatever color you choose to say "hey don't play from here". So it's not an opinion really, it's kind of a fact.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
You are talking about creating a rule where they already have the rules and tools necessary to solve said problem. There doesn't need to be blue stakes or whatever color you choose to say "hey don't play from here". So it's not an opinion really, it's kind of a fact.
Click to expand...

The current rules and tools have nothing to do with it because its not part of the rules. You cant use the current rules as a means to say for a fact that this rule couldn't exist. The only thing that's a fact is that it doesn't exist. The current tools used to help us stick to the current rules are only there because of those very same current rules.

Creating, changing or adding rules would then call for different measures to help us stick to the new rule changes and the tools used would also change, be created, or added accordingly just in the same way it all went for the current rules.

If such a rule existed it would create some uncertainty and leave some questions asking how different scenarios would be dealt with in just the very same way as happened with the real rules as they developed. And only when I was asked about some uncertainties did I mention its own system of stakes and even a neutral area too as a way to solve some of the uncertainties that may arise from playing the game with this rule.

Solving a problem (if it was one) of hitting into other fairways as a general rule of being a no no would require a new rule and would also mean it would require some sort of new system to help keep it in check. That system could quite possibly be new stakes and a neutral area.

None of this exists so it is very much about opinion and not fact. In the end the current rules would be a little different and the tools to help us stick to them would also be a little different.
 
rollin said:
The current rules and tools have nothing to do with it because its not part of the rules. You cant use the current rules as a means to say for a fact that this rule couldn't exist. The only thing that's a fact is that it doesn't exist. The current tools used to help us stick to the current rules are only there because of those very same current rules.

Creating, changing or adding rules would then call for different measures to help us stick to the new rule changes and the tools used would also change, be created, or added accordingly just in the same way it all went for the current rules.

If such a rule existed it would create some uncertainty and leave some questions asking how different scenarios would be dealt with in just the very same way as happened with the real rules as they developed. And only when I was asked about some uncertainties did I mention its own system of stakes and even a neutral area too as a way to solve some of the uncertainties that may arise from playing the game with this rule.

Solving a problem (if it was one) of hitting into other fairways as a general rule of being a no no would require a new rule and would also mean it would require some sort of new system to help keep it in check. That system could quite possibly be new stakes and a neutral area.

None of this exists so it is very much about opinion and not fact. In the end the current rules would be a little different and the tools to help us stick to them would also be a little different.
Click to expand...

There is no need at all for a rule regarding playing from another fairway or certain area on the course. They already have white stakes for out of bounds, yellow and red stakes for different hazards, sand traps, tree lines, water, etc. It is not an opinion, these stakes are available and are used to define the boundaries of the course. There is already "in course out of bounds" rules available if the designer or owner of the course deems it to be necessary.

The rule you are going to create is already covered by one of the options I just listed. All of the scenarios you have mentioned, can be covered under the options I listed as well.
 
rollin said:
Yes but you really could still be considered in the intended designed hole because you didn't cross the imaginary boundary of another hole. And I know this would create a lot of scenarios and debate because then one can add to my comment being contradicting and saying "how is it ok to chip out from the woods but not ok to go over them?". Answer for that one yet I don't have. lol . But I'm trying and never said this was perfect but hey, neither is everything about the game the way we play it now.
Click to expand...

Take for a moment a hole like many at for example St Andrews (Old and New courses) where you have two or three holes separated by 15yds of rough between them. Also in this rough there are bunkers dotted around and some of these would straddle the 'imaginary' halfway boundary between the two holes. Therefore you could be in one particular bunker and within two inches either way of centre you are either in or out of bounds(or whatever your rule would call it).

Totally impossible to police and not what golf is about.

To make all of these internal OOB markings would mean several green staff would have to be employed to do nothing but paint coloured lines on growing grass, and on an average golf course that would mean around 6 miles of painted lines to be checked and renewed as required prob every couple of days in the growing season.

I can see what you are trying to get at by saying play the hole as intended which is fine but don't you think that this kind of strategy/'rule' would penalise the poor striker more than the low handicapper who has got to that position usually because he hits better/straighter shots anyway. From my 40 years experience playing this wonderful game I could see this costing the high guy a bunch of penalties each week and the low guy prob a handful a year. The amount of wasted time with people debating where the ball crossed the line etc, etc and then p*****g about with a drop would mean MANY folks would pack the game in and head for the bar. Me being one of them.

Eventhough this 'rule' would not really make much difference to me I do not agree with the idea at all. End of.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe this thread has went on for so long...
 
tgtt said:
I can't believe this thread has went on for so long...
Click to expand...

I was literally coming in here to say the exact same thing.
 
well at least it has continued but managed to stay respectful. I'm sure some (or all) think I'm nuts but I didn't really intend to take it in so many directions but some keep bringing up the "what ifs" , the why's, the how's and add more thoughts to it so I just try to respond accordingly and then they respond accordingly and on it goes. I certainly didn't wish to create a bad negative atmosphere and hope that's not what I did.
 
rollin said:
Just because white stakes exist does not mean there could not have been a rule of not being allowed to play another fairway. And if the rules could have been or were always different from the start then we would have grown use to the way it was played all along and would all seem very normal to us. Especially because (like it or not) one can ceratinly say it does make some logical sense if we wernt allowed to do it. It wouldnt IMO have changed what the game is about at all. Just simply played with a different rule. There are rules now that many believe are rediculous. Why would it ever been so bad to have always had this hypothetic rule which is one that actually could be easily understood as to why it would exist?
Click to expand...

so are we now about PAST hypotetic rules?

by the way, i know of quote a few courses here in italy where playing from another fairway is not permitted.
how? with white stakes.
 
Man, you guys are rough. At least this thread isn't about slow play or anchoring.:act-up:
 
Rory just did this in the U.S. Open. Was playing #4 but played up #8. Good thing they let him do it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top