Change One Rule

Since we can only change one rule in this scenario, I would create a rule that allows for different rules for Pro vs Amateur golfers. This way the Pro golfers can continue to take stroke and distance penalties, play from divots, and keep the equipment restrictions. Thus keeping with the traditions of the game as viewed by the USGA and allowing Amateurs to focus on enjoying the game and not feeling like they are cheating by taking their ball out of a divot or dropping a ball at the closest point of relief after going OB vice heading back to the tee and slowing pace of play, etc.

rbarthle17 said:

But if it's good for making the game faster on the amateur level, why not do it for the pro level too? Just for clarification, the people advocating for a bifurcated rule book are doing so why? Is it because you think that stands a better chance of happening than a rule change for all levels? Or do you really think that pros need to play by a more restrictive set of rules than amateurs?

Click to expand...

They play a different caliber golf course... Why wouldn't they play a different set of rules as well?

Should Johnny Muni not get the same quality lie as a PGA pro, or does he need to pay thousands of dollars to enjoy the same course quality (both course intended and fellow competitors considered)?

rbarthle17 said:

But if it's good for making the game faster on the amateur level, why not do it for the pro level too? Just for clarification, the people advocating for a bifurcated rule book are doing so why? Is it because you think that stands a better chance of happening than a rule change for all levels? Or do you really think that pros need to play by a more restrictive set of rules than amateurs?

Click to expand...

Because there is no need for it. Case in point is the groove rule. It was determined that the grooves were too deep, so they could channel away more debris for the top players in the world out of the thicker grass. The result being too much spin in the short game area, making sand traps and rough less penal. On the amateur side of things, all the channeling does is speed up play because cleaner contact is better contact.

They made the rules based on the top players in the world and it will have a major impact on amateurs across the board for years to come. There is just no need for a rule like that for amateur golfers, yet it makes sense in some aspects for professional golfers.

Then add the idea that amateurs and professionals are playing completely different golf courses in terms of care, etc.

Evok said:

At the Quicken this weekend during one of Tigers rulings they called in that official and said he was a genius, like literally. They said he aced the rules exam and one of the commentators said his lawyer friends were talking about how much easier the Bar exam was compared to that rules test lol like wtf i feel like you shouldn't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand all the rules of golf.

Click to expand...

Evok,

That's announcers filling airtime with BS.

I've taken the USGA rules exam, and while it's difficult, to compare it to the Bar exam is utterly ridiculous.

The rules do have complexity in them because golf is a game which has more variation in its field of play and wacky situations which can come up than other sport. In what other sport could have you a ball lying on a movable obstruction, touched by a loose impediment, on top of an immovable obstruction, laying in a hazard, affected by casual water and blocked by a temporary immovable obstruction all at the same time?

The vast majority of the decisions revolve around situations which most golfers will never encounter. Understanding a few simple principles will cover 90% of the situations most golfers ever see. However, the wacky ones do come up, and that's what necessitates the decisions.

Let me ask another question. Bunkers.

How many times do you guys think a professional golfer needs to worry about hitting into a bunker only to find it sitting in a giant footprint? Let me answer that for you... never... Yet we as amateurs battle this on a regular basis. Hell even private clubs can't convince their entire membership to respect their fellow golfers in this regard.

Mind you, I think footprints in bunkers being a rake and place is fairly low down my list, but I think it's one of the best samples of how we play a different game on a different medium than the pros. Why we share an identical rulebook, in this sample, is lunacy.

I'm okay with the OB rule. Most times you know if your ball is near OB, and it's not that hard to hit a provisional (or 2 for us high cappers) If you don't remember to do that... that's on you.

But the lost ball rule (especially in open-ish areas) is sort of an amateur only penalty. It's not only the 100 to 1000+ extra eyes watching the most popular tour pros, it's even just 10+ extra eyes of marshals standing near where the ball disappears that find most balls. That should take out the "not all pros have huge followings or tv cameras on them all the time" argument.

As for the cheating % Canadan is half-full optimistic about, I don't think it's the number that matters; that 80 or 90% play it straight. The same 15% that cheat now will be the same 15% that claim their ball disappeared 60 yds farther up than where it did. Changing the rule will not change the number of cheaters.

Bottom line: For those balls that everyone (or a reasonable number of people) see land and know very close to where it SHOULD be, but then it rolls into leaves, or another person or goblin takes it, or finds it's way into some area the course can't afford to maintain as well as it should, and it disappears... there should be no distance penalty. Add two strokes if you want; but going all the way back when you had no reasonable expectation your ball would not to be found is just dumb and time wasting.

Canadan said:

Let me ask another question. Bunkers.

How many times do you guys think a professional golfer needs to worry about hitting into a bunker only to find it sitting in a giant footprint? Let me answer that for you... never... Yet we as amateurs battle this on a regular basis. Hell even private clubs can't convince their entire membership to respect their fellow golfers in this regard.

Mind you, I think footprints in bunkers being a rake and place is fairly low down my list, but I think it's one of the best samples of how we play a different game on a different medium than the pros. Why we share an identical rulebook, in this sample, is lunacy.

Click to expand...

Just last week the foursome ahead of us had their kids playing with them and on the last one of the kids was running through a greenside bunker. I turned to my buddy and told him I bet the kid doesn't rake the bunker when he gets out, and lo and behold, he didn't. The rules don't even allow you to go forward and rake the bunker before you play since that is improving your line of play. How dumb is that?

wadesworld said:

Evok,

That's announcers filling airtime with BS.

I've taken the USGA rules exam, and while it's difficult, to compare it to the Bar exam is utterly ridiculous.

The rules do have complexity in them because golf is a game which has more variation in its field of play and wacky situations which can come up than other sport. In what other sport could have you a ball lying on a movable obstruction, touched by a loose impediment, on top of an immovable obstruction, laying in a hazard, affected by casual water and blocked by a temporary immovable obstruction all at the same time?

The vast majority of the decisions revolve around situations which most golfers will never encounter. Understanding a few simple principles will cover 90% of the situations most golfers ever see. However, the wacky ones do come up, and that's what necessitates the decisions.

Click to expand...

Haha right on. I wanted him to be a highly intelligent being tho!!!

If I could do away with one it would be the upcoming ban on anchored putters. Why they allow something for 40+ years and then all of sudden ban it is silly. I putted belly and long style for a decade or so and have been back to conventional for the last 10 years. I don't buy the argument that anchoring is an advantage.

captaincaution said:

Just last week the foursome ahead of us had their kids playing with them and on the last one of the kids was running through a greenside bunker. I turned to my buddy and told him I bet the kid doesn't rake the bunker when he gets out, and lo and behold, he didn't. The rules don't even allow you to go forward and rake the bunker before you play since that is improving your line of play. How dumb is that?

Click to expand...

It's quite dumb, for sure.... and for those worried about questionable divots in the fairway, I can only imagine their take on how badly people would take advantage of a 'rake footprint in bunker' rule.

Canadan said:

Let me ask another question. Bunkers.

How many times do you guys think a professional golfer needs to worry about hitting into a bunker only to find it sitting in a giant footprint? Let me answer that for you... never... Yet we as amateurs battle this on a regular basis. Hell even private clubs can't convince their entire membership to respect their fellow golfers in this regard.

Mind you, I think footprints in bunkers being a rake and place is fairly low down my list, but I think it's one of the best samples of how we play a different game on a different medium than the pros. Why we share an identical rulebook, in this sample, is lunacy.

Click to expand...

That is a very true statement. BUT if the pro's never run into it...how does it alter their game to change the rule? What I'm saying is: why have two completely different rule books for rules pro's hardly ever run into? If that makes sense.

huhhh said:

That is a very true statement. BUT if the pro's never run into it...how does it alter their game to change the rule? What I'm saying is: why have two completely different rule books for rules pro's hardly ever run into? If that makes sense.

Click to expand...

I'm just offering one of the most visible samples of how we experience a different game as regular golfers. No different from spike marks on the greens or improperly filled divots or impossible to find balls in thick rough or tall grass.

Canadan said:

They play a different caliber golf course... Why wouldn't they play a different set of rules as well?

Should Johnny Muni not get the same quality lie as a PGA pro, or does he need to pay thousands of dollars to enjoy the same course quality (both course intended and fellow competitors considered)?

Click to expand...

JB said:

Because there is no need for it. Case in point is the groove rule. It was determined that the grooves were too deep, so they could channel away more debris for the top players in the world out of the thicker grass. The result being too much spin in the short game area, making sand traps and rough less penal. On the amateur side of things, all the channeling does is speed up play because cleaner contact is better contact.

They made the rules based on the top players in the world and it will have a major impact on amateurs across the board for years to come. There is just no need for a rule like that for amateur golfers, yet it makes sense in some aspects for professional golfers.

Then add the idea that amateurs and professionals are playing completely different golf courses in terms of care, etc.

Click to expand...

So thinking out loud here. I see the equipment rule corollary to other sports (wood / metal bats), but I still get tripped up on the quality of the course issue. How is that any different than basically any other outdoor sport (and probably indoor sports as well)? Would I have loved to have a pristine baseball diamond with smooth dirt so to get a true hop on basically any ground ball? Yes. Did I ever get that? No, not even playing in college. But did they ever change the rules to accommodate the worse conditions I had to play under compared to the pros? Also no. I'm sure anyone that played football, soccer, tennis, etc. could tell a similar story. So to me that argument is the weakest one of them all.

If you want to do things like make divots ground under repair and get a free drop, then I say I am all for it as a universal rule. But just because Johnny Muni isn't playing at Augusta National does not mean he should get a benefit because of that, and that is what you are lobbying for. Yes you may get more bad breaks because of that. That is why they call it "bad breaks".

rbarthle17 said:

So thinking out loud here. I see the equipment rule corollary to other sports (wood / metal bats), but I still get tripped up on the quality of the course issue. How is that any different than basically any other outdoor sport (and probably indoor sports as well)? Would I have loved to have a pristine baseball diamond with smooth dirt so to get a true hop on basically any ground ball? Yes. Did I ever get that? No, not even playing in college. But did they ever change the rules to accommodate the worse conditions I had to play under compared to the pros? Also no. I'm sure anyone that played football, soccer, tennis, etc. could tell a similar story. So to me that argument is the weakest one of them all.

If you want to do things like make divots ground under repair and get a free drop, then I say I am all for it as a universal rule. But just because Johnny Muni isn't playing at Augusta National does not mean he should get a benefit because of that, and that is what you are lobbying for. Yes you may get some bad breaks because of that. That is why they call it "bad breaks".

Click to expand...

That has little impact on my groove rule example and why there should be separate rules. THey made the rule strictly because Tour Players were abusing courses and it comes at the detriment to other golfers.

Canadan said:

I'm just offering one of the most visible samples of how we experience a different game as regular golfers. No different from spike marks on the greens or improperly filled divots or impossible to find balls in thick rough or tall grass.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just saying if we change it for amateurs, why not change it for pro's too? Especially if they hardly ever run into these situations? Would it really make that big a difference if we added 2 strokes, instead of re-teeing the 1 time in 5,000 a pro actually looses a ball?

i've posted about this in other threads, but i'm all for a bifurcated rules system. the rule i'd like to change most has to do with hazards. i haven't fully thought through this, but i would prefer to see one amateur color (maybe blue), then pros play by red, white and yellow. so every stake would be half blue, and half red, white or yellow. the amateur hazard would basically be played like what we currently know as a red stake, except you wouldn't be able to hit out of it if possible. hopefully that would prevent 5 minutes looking for a ball, and it would cover what we see a lot of in orlando which is white stakes that exist mainly so that you don't hit a ball out of somebody's back yard.

the second most important rule would be lost ball, followed closely by footprints in bunkers then divots in fairways.

You know, I thought this was supposed to be a fun thread, but noooooo. This is the internet where everything blows up into a big argument. 9 pages. This thread is delivering! But it seems like we're getting back on track.

We have to admit there are a lot of inconsistencies.

1) Lateral water hazards. You hit your driver. It slices about 180 - 200 yds out into the hazard.... you think. Where did it really cross the line. You saw a splash. So you use your depth perception to determine where it crossed. You play in a league. Your competitor says it crossed the line 100 yds further back than you say it did. There are no officials on hand. Which one of you is right? Where do you take your drop? Split the difference? +1 stroke & drop.

So if you can do this on LWH, why can't you do this on OB? You have just as much accuracy as you do on the LWH rule.

Then why don't they just make WH all yellow? Well that means you can play on a line with where your ball crossed (inaccurate because there's no officials) and the pin. Suppose it's a long hazard? There are a lot of people who can't carry that distance, so that makes them have to rehit.

2) The rocks and roots stuff. We're talking about tree roots, not crab grass. Some courses have these local rules anyway where you get a free drop. Others don't. I'm not hitting anywhere near a tree because I don't want to re-injure my shoulder. Sometimes an unplayable isn't far enough. It's borderline right now. Because of this I'm not playing in my league the rest of the season. Just casual rounds.

3) Stones and Rocks in bunkers - they're dangerous - remove them. County run courses have the local rule "stones and rocks found in bunkers may be removed without penalty." It's for liability reasons. They don't want to be sued. The USGA should allow this as well. I will remove them in a casual round. The USGA needs to understand that just because a person is playing on a course, that person does not waive their rights. The course is responsible.

4) Except when both the loose impediment and the ball lie in or touch the same hazard, any loose impediment may be removed without penalty. If the ball lies in a hazard, the player must not touch or move any loose impediment lying in or touching the same hazard - see Rule 13-4c. Bunkers are a hazard. After a storm, stuff will blow into a bunker. Stuff like pine cones, branches, and other debris. Maybe there will even be litter in the bunker. Maybe there will be stuff like The grounds crew may not have gotten to them yet. Some slob may have left his half-eaten hot dog in the bunker. If your ball lands behind it, that's your tough luck. On the tour, that stuff doesn't happen.

Let's face the facts. The pros don't play with a branch in the middle of a bunker that fell from a storm. It's removed. We, on the other hand have to somehow hit our ball with that branch there. I say we should get to remove this crap from the bunker without penalty.

I am not a fan of changing the rule to allow the smoothing of a footprint in a bunker. A bunker is a hazard. It's hazardous. Footprints, weird rake marks, etc come with the territory.

Frankly, bunkers are too well maintained. I dislike that they are preferable to the rough for many good players.

In casual rounds do whatever you want. I don't understand what seems to be so difficult about that. If I was a waiter, I'd bring a plate of cheese to this table to go with all of the vino. :angel:

Regarding one rule change idea...and I am referring to competitive amateur golf:
When hitting a shot over a lateral hazard (ex. water), if my first attempt may or may not have carried, I would like to be able to hit a provisional, for pace of place reasons.

I understand the reason you can't, though. If you do find your original, and it is in the hazard, you may decide that you like your provisional (even with the penalty stroke) better than your original. And, that gives the golfer options and possibly a competitive advantage.

TheWoo said:

I am not a fan of changing the rule to allow the smoothing of a footprint in a bunker. A bunker is a hazard. It's hazardous. Footprints, weird rake marks, etc come with the territory.

Frankly, bunkers are too well maintained. I dislike that they are preferable to the rough for many good players.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, it just sucks that common sense and rude golfers should be a factor in my golf experience. It's certainly not how the course was intended to be played.

Canadan said:

I see what you're saying, it just sucks that common sense and rude golfers should be a factor in my golf experience. It's certainly not how the course was intended to be played.

Click to expand...

I absolutely understand - and have been frustrated when in that situation. And sucky people suck. I don't understand them and I never will.

But I get to work on my non-traditional bunker play when it happens. And I have an excuse if I hit a poor shot. :bulgy-eyes:

Canadan said:

It's quite dumb, for sure.... and for those worried about questionable divots in the fairway, I can only imagine their take on how badly people would take advantage of a 'rake footprint in bunker' rule.

Click to expand...

So after some more reading of the decisiomlns, turns out I could have gone and fixed the bunker before I played since I'm entitled to the lie I had when my ball cam to rest, but it still wouldn't be practical to take advantage of that before I play an approach shot.

I still think that footprints in bunkers go against the spirit of the game, even though the decisions consider them in great depth.

staticline said:

In casual rounds do whatever you want. I don't understand what seems to be so difficult about that. If I was a waiter, I'd bring a plate of cheese to this table to go with all of the vino. :angel:

Regarding one rule change idea...and I am referring to competitive amateur golf:
When hitting a shot over a lateral hazard (ex. water), if my first attempt may or may not have carried, I would like to be able to hit a provisional, for pace of place reasons.

I understand the reason you can't, though. If you do find your original, and it is in the hazard, you may decide that you like your provisional (even with the penalty stroke) better than your original. And, that gives the golfer options and possibly a competitive advantage.

Click to expand...

Well, is it really an advantage? after all he still sitting there in 3 and has lost 2 strokes (because of the distance) and would be hitting 4. Its not going to be too often one would chose to hit 4 (via his provisional) vs hitting out from his trouble to then be hitting 3. Even at worst case could take an unplayable, hit our with 3 and then hit 4 which is about the same anyway.

But again, many amateurs can hit a provisional and also find trouble too and/or on oposit sides of the hole from original shots. Nothing about it saves time imo.

rollin said:

Well, is it really an advantage? after all he still sitting there in 3 and has lost 2 strokes (because of the distance) and would be hitting 4. Its not going to be too often one would chose to hit 4 (via his provisional) vs hitting out from his trouble to then be hitting 3. Even at worst case could take an unplayable, hit our with 3 and then hit 4 which is about the same anyway.

Click to expand...

Unlikely, but what if this happens on a par 3 and the player holes the second ball or even hits it to tap in range from the tee. He could find his original ball in the hazard and decide to keep the second ball since he is in for a 3 or 4.

It is a clear advantage to know how your provisional ball ends up before searching for the original, even I more likely cases.

If I play more in Arizona, I'd want to be able to carry an extra club - my "desert" club. That desert chews-up irons/wedges (I know, just don't hit it in the desert).

Overall, though, I think I'd like to see handling of OB/Lost Balls changed, similar to what others have posted.