Does golf have too many rules?

The Game Room
41

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
No cite off the top of my head - perhaps I’ll search later. But my understanding was that the rules say you need to declare the “reason” for your provisional. In the example I gave, the golfer thought his ball was lost, so he declared a provisional for that reason. As it turned out, the ball was not lost, but was OB, and he had not declared that he was hitting a provisional for OB.

Most of what I post here of what I understand of specific “tricky” rules is either what I’ve heard from better golfers than I who play tourneys and claim to know, or what I hear/read in the golf media. Me, I just play a fun recreational game. Neither the amount I wager, nor the pros’ rules, unduly interfere with my having a pleasant walk in the park.

In the example you describe with the staked hazard, I can kind of understand that rule, at least if you do not find your ball in the hazard. Because if you do not find your ball, I’m not sure you can establish that your ball entered or came to rest in the hazard. For all you know, it might have bounced off a tree and may just be under a leaf somewhere in play.
[/QUOTE]

I went digging…looks like a lost ball and OB ball are considered the same in terms of provisional declaration…the intent to hit a provisional is declared not the degree to how bad you shot was :slight_smile:

Rule 27.2

a. Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search for the original ball.

If he fails to do so and plays another ball, that ball is not a provisional ball and becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1); the original ball is lost.Procedure

If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1. The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search for the original ball.

If he fails to do so and plays another ball, that ball is not a provisional ball and becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1); the original ball is lost.

42

[QUOTE=Dig it out of the ground]
Now how about a bees nest - free drop from harmful situations - alligators and snakes too…
[/QUOTE]

Around these parts in the spring red-winged blackbirds are very territorial about protecting their nests. Would you say a free drop is allowed if a bird is strafing you?

Just curious - was it a venomous snake? Were you able to get your ball, or did you drop a new ball? How far was the nearest point of relief, and how did you calculate it? If you could reach your ball with a club, couldn’t you just as easily use your club to get the snake to move? Was this in a tourney or a casual round, and did you receive approval by your opponent or an official?

Any thoughts about my question concerning the ball moving atop the grass while you ground your club?

43

[QUOTE=Dig it out of the ground]
I went digging…looks like a lost ball and OB ball are considered the same in terms of provisional declaration…the intent to hit a provisional is declared not the degree to how bad you shot was :slight_smile:

[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

I may well have been misinformed. I vaguely recall hearing that this occurred in a tourney, tho I believe it was local rather than pro.

Unless clarification may exist in the countless decisions you mention.

I recall one during a recent televised tourney. A player was marking his ball on the green when he dropped his marker which struck his ball. The rules consultant on TV said the rule says no penalty if the ball moves while you are in the act of marking or replacing the ball. BUT there is a specific exception for if the ball moves because the marker is dropped on it. I dunno. There may be a reason, but it is not obvious to me.

44

With reference to the “we can’t let anyone kneel on a towel to avoid dirtying their pants because then they’ll start using all kinds of mechanical aids to build stances,” the “we can’t let anyone get away with correcting their scorecard five minutes after it is handed in,” and the “if we didn’t have a penalty for the wind moving the ball after it is addressed then people will start grounding their clubs in a way to improve their lies” arguments, I have only one response.

Isn’t golf supposed to be a game of honor? I know the difference between me kneeling on a towel so I don’t have to walk around for three hours with an annoying wet spot and me trying to get an unfair advantage by building a stance. I know the difference between me causing the ball to move by grounding the club and a random event that happens after I ground my club that causes the ball to move. I also know the difference between goofing up and trying to correct a scorecard as opposed to trying to pull a fast one.

Of course, I think the whole reason that golf has so many rules is that it isn’t actually a game of honor, but nobody wants to admit it. I just wish people would stop pretending that it is. It’s a game of cheaters, from the hacker right up to a sizable number of pros.

If golf was actually a game of honor, then we golfers should be permitted to exercise some judgment as to whether we’re doing something innocuous or something to get an unfair advantage.

45

[QUOTE=Ravenman]

Isn’t golf supposed to be a game of honor? I know the difference between me kneeling on a towel so I don’t have to walk around for three hours with an annoying wet spot and me trying to get an unfair advantage by building a stance. I know the difference between me causing the ball to move by grounding the club and a random event that happens after I ground my club that causes the ball to move. I also know the difference between goofing up and trying to correct a scorecard as opposed to trying to pull a fast one.

Of course, I think the whole reason that golf has so many rules is that it isn’t actually a game of honor, but nobody wants to admit it. I just wish people would stop pretending that it is. It’s a game of cheaters, from the hacker right up to a sizable number of pros.

If golf was actually a game of honor, then we golfers should be permitted to exercise some judgment as to whether we’re doing something innocuous or something to get an unfair advantage.
[/QUOTE]

I think this states an interesting perspective very well (tho perhaps without the middle paragraph!)

46

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Around these parts in the spring red-winged blackbirds are very territorial about protecting their nests. Would you say a free drop is allowed if a bird is strafing you?

Just curious - was it a venomous snake? Were you able to get your ball, or did you drop a new ball? How far was the nearest point of relief, and how did you calculate it? If you could reach your ball with a club, couldn’t you just as easily use your club to get the snake to move? Was this in a tourney or a casual round, and did you receive approval by your opponent or an official?

Any thoughts about my question concerning the ball moving atop the grass while you ground your club?
[/QUOTE]

If a poisonous snake or a gator are too close to your ball you may move it to a safer location ,but not nearer the hole or allowing an escape from an obstacle. Golf really does not want to kill its players.

47

Personally, I hate when the clown eats the ball at the end of the course - and don’t even get me started on the problems with a windmill in the middle of everything!

48

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]

Regarding the “ball at rest” discussion above, I’d appreciate an explanation of a specific situation:
Is this correct? Here is the situation I have in mind. Your ball is in the rough, essentially sitting on top of some grass that is lying somewhat flat. If you ground your club and touch the grass, you will depress it slightly, causing the ball to bob down slightly. The ball does not rotate or otherwise move in relation to the grass it is sitting on, but it does “move.” When you initiate your swing, the grass most likely springs back and the ball resumes its previous position.

My understanding was that this incurred a penalty, and that in such situations you ought not ground your club. I’d appreciate a specific cite to a ruling on the subject one way or the other.

Here’s another one I think stupid. You hit your drive into the woods. You declare you are hitting a provisional for the potentially lost ball and drive it down the middle. When you get out there, you find your first ball, but it is beyond some OB stakes you are not aware of. My understanding is that the rules require that you re-tee, because you did not declare the provisional to be for OB. How does this make sense?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe somebody can find a decision on the “jiggling” rule - I can’t, just the definition that I cited earlier (A ball is deemed to have “moved” if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.)

Watch the pros on TV - they jiggle all the time (especially John Daly :p)

As to the provisional ball - I’m sure you’re thinking of the situation whereby you play a provisional and the ball is found in the trees. At this point the provisional MUST be abandoned. The (seemingly) stupid part is that if you decide that the original ball is unplayable, one of your options is to replay the shot (stroke and distance) from the tee. If that choice is made the earlier provisional cannot be used - you go back to the tee instead. I guess the thinking is that for the unplayable, you have several choices of penalty - you cannot use a choice where the outcome is already known, i.e. where the provisional ended up.

Here is the pertinent part of “27-2. Provisional Ball”

49

This week’s GolfWeek magazine had a blurb about a club pro who was DQed from qualifying for this week’s PGA. (Sorry, I do not have the mag or a cite handy.) Apparently this guy won his sectional, but was subsequently DQed for violation of the 14-club rule because he had a weighted practice club stowed behind the seats in his cart (they are allowed to use carts in quals?)

Does anyone think this is anything other than ridiculous? By the same logic, they had better start checking to make sure no one has a golf club-shaped key chain - or maybe even the image of a golf club on their clothing…

Stupid, STUPID rules!

50

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
This week’s GolfWeek magazine had a blurb about a club pro who was DQed from qualifying for this week’s PGA. (Sorry, I do not have the mag or a cite handy.) Apparently this guy won his sectional, but was subsequently DQed for violation of the 14-club rule because he had a weighted practice club stowed behind the seats in his cart (they are allowed to use carts in quals?)

Does anyone think this is anything other than ridiculous? By the same logic, they had better start checking to make sure no one has a golf club-shaped key chain - or maybe even the image of a golf club on their clothing…

Stupid, STUPID rules!
[/QUOTE]

i hear your frustration…but the cart is considered part of one’s equipment. There is no difference in having that practice club and an extra wedge for example. The extreme example would be if the player had several other clubs in his cart to choose from.

Regarding carts - the committee organizing these sectional qual. tourney can allow carts. It might be because the course was a resort type course with green to next tee being longer than the actual tee to green. This speeds play. Even the PGA touring pros will get a ride sometimes.

51

[QUOTE=Moment Slayer]
There is no difference in having that practice club and an extra wedge for example. The extreme example would be if the player had several other clubs in his cart to choose from.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree - and this directly goes to the ridiculousness of the rule. An extra wedge - or “several other clubs” might conceivably be used to strike a ball during competition. Whereas no one would ever dream of taking a competitive shot with a weighted club.

Hell, by your logic you might as well consider a golf umbrella to be a club, because someone could take leave of their senses and try to hit a ball with their umbrella during a round. Just about as likely as hitting a shot with a weighted club.

52

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I disagree - and this directly goes to the ridiculousness of the rule. An extra wedge - or “several other clubs” might conceivably be used to strike a ball during competition. Whereas no one would ever dream of taking a competitive shot with a weighted club.

Hell, by your logic you might as well consider a golf umbrella to be a club, because someone could take leave of their senses and try to hit a ball with their umbrella during a round. Just about as likely as hitting a shot with a weighted club.
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing your assumption about the origin of the rule is solid – that it’s there to prevent the use of more than 14 clubs to hit the ball – but I suppose he could have been using the weighted club to keep loose or make practice swings during his round. In that sense it could represent an advantage over the rest of the field.

53

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I disagree - and this directly goes to the ridiculousness of the rule. An extra wedge - or “several other clubs” might conceivably be used to strike a ball during competition. Whereas no one would ever dream of taking a competitive shot with a weighted club.
[/QUOTE]

This statement is false. I can consider a number of reasons why I might be interested in using a weighted club to strike the ball. Since the club CAN be used as a club, it IS a club. Therefore, it’s counted as a club, and if he had fifteen clubs, he’s in trouble.

Intent is irrelevant. I might have 15 clubs in my bag because I forget to remove my 1-iron from the bag, having NO intent to use it in a given competition, and having put an extra wedge in there instead. But because it’s in my bag, it’s available to me, and that’s a no-no, intent to use it or not.

George Brett didn’t intend to gain an unfair advantage by how he applied pine tar to his bat, either, but that didn’t make it proper to do what he did. Baseball, football, golf: they all have rules that aren’t intent determinative; golf isn’t any better or worse in that regard. :dubious:

54

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
This statement is false. I can consider a number of reasons why I might be interested in using a weighted club to strike the ball.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s hear them, bub! Sure, I can make up a bunch of ridiculous reasons no sane golfer would ever contemplate. But just making up bullshit strikes me as little justification for such a silly rule.

Well, I suppose a golfer could also take a whack at his ball with a ball retriever, scoring pencil, or his dick…

Clearly your opinion - but I think it ridiculous to equate a training aid with a standard club.

And Figaro, use of a training aid during a round is prohibited elsewhere in the Rules.

55

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
And Figaro, use of a training aid during a round is prohibited elsewhere in the Rules.
[/QUOTE]
Ah - thanks.

56

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Let’s hear them, bub! Sure, I can make up a bunch of ridiculous reasons no sane golfer would ever contemplate. But just making up bullshit strikes me as little justification for such a silly rule.

Well, I suppose a golfer could also take a whack at his ball with a ball retriever, scoring pencil, or his dick…

Clearly your opinion - but I think it ridiculous to equate a training aid with a standard club.

And Figaro, use of a training aid during a round is prohibited elsewhere in the Rules.
[/QUOTE]

Well, one obvious example is hitting the ball out of a thick rough. Which I have done with a weighted club; one of the people I play with carries one around regularly and uses it to loosen up before and during the round (we aren’t so finicky about such things). I’ve hit it off the fairway (no advantage to doing so, since one can’t get enough clubhead speed to get sufficient distance), and out of rough, where the weight of the club helps it get down to the ball. Of course, if you aren’t careful, you could break a wrist doing it, but the ball flies out quite nicely. :smiley:
As for what else you could use, well, the Great Montague once beat Bing Crosby on a hole with a fungo bat, a shovel, and a rake. :stuck_out_tongue: But I doubt any of them would be considered “clubs.”

57

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Let’s hear them, bub! Sure, I can make up a bunch of ridiculous reasons no sane golfer would ever contemplate. But just making up bullshit strikes me as little justification for such a silly rule.

Well, I suppose a golfer could also take a whack at his ball with a ball retriever, scoring pencil, or his dick…

Clearly your opinion - but I think it ridiculous to equate a training aid with a standard club.

And Figaro, use of a training aid during a round is prohibited elsewhere in the Rules.
[/QUOTE]

Hitting the ball with anything other than a conforming club is against the rules. I doubt your dick is conforming…club that is.

As is hitting with the non-club end of the club…again back to your dick…

Rules protect against many possibilities and rather than try to predict them all the rules say 14 clubs and also that you cant a non-conforming club. The latter doesnt separate out intentional - bending or building a club to non-conforming specs or if it happens by accident…

I am sorry you find the rules silly. I find the game to be an excellent test of physical and mental abilities. The rules attempt to keep the play as fair as possible.

58

[QUOTE=Moment Slayer]
I am sorry you find the rules silly. I find the game to be an excellent test of physical and mental abilities. The rules attempt to keep the play as fair as possible.
[/QUOTE]

Like someone said above - if it were truly a game of honor, you wouldn’t need such silly rules …

Hell, I hit a provisional when I thought I drove outta bounds today. Took correct drops from one unplayable lie, and relief from a path. Putted everything out. That’s a fine test of my physical and mental abilities. Even brought home a couple of bucks for my efforts.

But to worry whether some guy carefully cleaned out his bag after the last trip to the driving range would - IMO - get in the way of the pleasant walk through the park.

59

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
…George Brett didn’t intend to gain an unfair advantage by how he applied pine tar to his bat, either, but that didn’t make it proper to do what he did. Baseball, football, golf: they all have rules that aren’t intent determinative; golf isn’t any better or worse in that regard. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Uhhhmmm…the infamous ruling in the Pine Tar Incident was overturned.

Regarding the OP-

I watched Brandt Snedeker penalize himself a stroke at the Masters because his ball moved about 1/8" after he’d soled his putter. They zoomed in on him trying to replace the ball and he had to try 3 or 4 times to get the ball to sit still in its original position while assiduously placing it with his hand. And I got to listen to the jackass commentators watching this farce hold forth on the beauty of the Rules of Golf, and the application thereof.

And today I watched Phil Michelson take free relief from the rough behind a green because a sprinkler head interfered with his stance. It just so happened that in taking his club-length, no nearer the hole, his ball ended up on the fringe of the green. Basically he got to exchange a 25’ chip out of PGA Championship rough, rough that has been making the best players in the world look like a drunken bogey golfers, onto a green Stimping 14, for a 25’ putt. Which would you rather?

Let me re-iterate; Snedeker gets penalized a stroke for a chance movement of a golf ball that netted him absolutely no advantage. Michelson gets to exchange a tricky chip for ho-hum putt because he’d have been standing on a sprinkler head, gaining an distinct advantage, without penalty, indeed with the blessing of the sacrosanct Rules of Golf.

I don’t know if Golf has too many rules , but it certainly has some flagrantly unjust rules in desperate need of modification. And perhaps a liberal application of that “spirit of the rules” school of thought that got the Pine Tar Incident resolved correctly, if a bit belatedly.

60

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Like someone said above - if it were truly a game of honor, you wouldn’t need such silly rules …

Hell, I hit a provisional when I thought I drove outta bounds today. Took correct drops from one unplayable lie, and relief from a path. Putted everything out. That’s a fine test of my physical and mental abilities. Even brought home a couple of bucks for my efforts.

But to worry whether some guy carefully cleaned out his bag after the last trip to the driving range would - IMO - get in the way of the pleasant walk through the park.
[/QUOTE]

why would anyone care? IIRC, the 14 club rule only applies to “stipulated rounds.” Your weekend gig with your buds aren’t included. :wink: