Jump to content


 

Photo

Rules Modernisation


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#31 Weetbix

Weetbix

    Par in my sight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38543 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 03 March 2017 - 06:32 AM

Yeah - dropping in a bunker sucks - and is very annoying when you have to drop from water and you effectively get an additional penalty by ending up plugged
  • AGQ likes this

Handicap

Best result: 2 over 74 at Hills International on 13 Feb 2016

Eagles: 21/10/16 17th Keysborough, 24/10/16 18th Woodlands

Goal: A round at par or better!

Brisbane Fairways 2015 Club Champion

Brisbane Fairways 2015 Clubman of the Year

Winner: 2015 Nationals day 5 round at Links Hope Island

Winner: 2016 Nationals day 5 round at Woodlands

South East Queensland Golf Group - Treasurer

http://www.brisbanef...ssocialgolf.com - Treasurer


#32 AGQ

AGQ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:48 AM

So I presume you don't take relief from immovable obstructions and things like that then? Never take a drop off a cart path?

It's silly that they have some rules in place to make the game fair and then glaring omissions like balls in unfilled divots, in my opinion.

If you're going to say play it as it lies, make that the case in all circumstances. You've always got the option of an unplayable.

Not an issue to do that, I don't always take relief from these situations. But these are man made objects which sometimes could be dangerous, so there is an obvious safety factor to be considered. There is a huge difference between playing from some immovable obstructions, compared to a bit of earth that has been moved on the fairway. Agree with Monty that relief on the fairway would end up being abused.

 

I hate that the rules have had to become so complex and sometimes not fair. But after hearing some peoples arguments over the years on certain rulings/situations, I can understand how this has occurred. You only have to look through this forum on rulings to see that. There will always be someone trying to twist something to make it work for them.


  • Monty85 likes this

Fulfilling my dream to play Australia's Top 100

 

AGD 2016 - 95 played

AGD 2014 - 97 played

GA - 2016 - 85 played

GA - 2014 - 90 played


#33 Snappy McSnapperton

Snappy McSnapperton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1165 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:15 AM

Any idea why they are proposing to change the relief area to take a drop from 2 clublengths to 80 inches? It would seem rather inconvenient to now have to carry a tape measure. 


  • Monty85 likes this

If I can win an OOM anyone can. 
 
http://www.golflink....k_no=3012646041

 

 


#34 Itchy4Scratch

Itchy4Scratch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4264 posts
  • LocationSE Melbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:17 AM

Not an issue to do that, I don't always take relief from these situations. But these are man made objects which sometimes could be dangerous, so there is an obvious safety factor to be considered. There is a huge difference between playing from some immovable obstructions, compared to a bit of earth that has been moved on the fairway. Agree with Monty that relief on the fairway would end up being abused.

 

I hate that the rules have had to become so complex and sometimes not fair. But after hearing some peoples arguments over the years on certain rulings/situations, I can understand how this has occurred. You only have to look through this forum on rulings to see that. There will always be someone trying to twist something to make it work for them.

Animal scratchings and embedded balls then, neither are dangerous and both can allow you relief in the fairway. Animal scratching especially often provides relief when you've actually hit a bad shot. 

All relief can be abused in some way, people being very liberal with the nearest point of relief is a very common one. As many on here have said, taking advantage of knowing the rules is a skill. I don't see why this would be any different and if the R&A wanted to, they could provide a very limiting definition for when relief would be provided. Ie, only an unfilled divot or only an unfilled divot or sanded divot. They could expressly forbid relief from an old divot that is covered in grass. 

I'd be interested to know how you think a rule like this could be twisted to give someone any material advantage. All it would ever do is provide equity. 

 



#35 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1432 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:24 AM

Any idea why they are proposing to change the relief area to take a drop from 2 clublengths to 80 inches? It would seem rather inconvenient to now have to carry a tape measure. 

 

This one stood out to me as well.

 

The solution proposed seems to be that clubs will have measurement marks on them, which is ridiculous. What if the marks rub out? Then what?

 

If we still need to physically use a club to measure relief, why change this at all? Sure some clubs might be longer or shorter for certain players, but we're taking about a negligible difference here most of the time.


Edited by Monty85, 03 March 2017 - 08:25 AM.

| GolfLink 


#36 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1432 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:36 AM

They could expressly forbid relief from an old divot that is covered in grass. 

I'd be interested to know how you think a rule like this could be twisted to give someone any material advantage. All it would ever do is provide equity. 

 

 

Possibly, but when do we call an unfilled divot, unfilled?

 

What if a few bits of grass that flew out are replaced in it. So its now a 95% unfilled divot. And if it is filled, does it have to be level with the ground. What if it’s a sand castle? What if there are only 10 grains of sand in there? What if it’s a sand based course – was the sand put there, or was it already there? Too many questions, too many grey areas.

 

As I said. Because its almost impossible to determine what an unfilled divot is (100% of the time), the rule would be abused. I think if you want equity, you have to have a rule that is “preferred lies in the fairway at all times." Whether that is agreeable or not is another question, but a rule relating to divots, filled or unfilled, I can’t see working.

 

Anyway. Overfilled divots are a bigger issue I find. So many old mates put down sand castles on top of divots as they walk down the fairway.

 

I'll take an unfilled divot over that any day of the week.


Edited by Monty85, 03 March 2017 - 08:38 AM.

| GolfLink 


#37 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2908 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:37 AM

They could expressly forbid relief from an old divot that is covered in grass. . 

 

How would you do that without samples or photos. What density of blades is required?

 

Incidentally, it's not widely known but I am told it was tried in Scotland some years ago for a few years. Chaos reigned. The experiment was abandoned.


Edited by AAA, 03 March 2017 - 08:41 AM.

  • Monty85 likes this

#38 Itchy4Scratch

Itchy4Scratch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4264 posts
  • LocationSE Melbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:54 AM

Possibly, but when do we call an unfilled divot, unfilled?

 

What if a few bits of grass that flew out are replaced in it. So its now a 95% unfilled divot. And if it is filled, does it have to be level with the ground. What if it’s a sand castle? What if there are only 10 grains of sand in there? What if it’s a sand based course – was the sand put there, or was it already there? Too many questions, too many grey areas.

 

As I said. Because its almost impossible to determine what an unfilled divot is (100% of the time), the rule would be abused. I think if you want equity, you have to have a rule that is “preferred lies in the fairway at all times." Whether that is agreeable or not is another question, but a rule relating to divots, filled or unfilled, I can’t see working.

 

Anyway. Overfilled divots are a bigger issue I find. So many old mates put down sand castles on top of divots as they walk down the fairway.

 

I'll take an unfilled divot over that any day of the week.

If it were going to be a rule then I'd say any divot that is not entirely covered in grass would cover all situations mentioned including sanded divots and sand castles. 

Preferred lies on the fairway at all times would probably be an extreme versio

 

How would you do that without samples or photos. What density of blades is required?

 

Incidentally, it's not widely known but I am told it was tried in Scotland some years ago for a few years. Chaos reigned. The experiment was abandoned.

Chaos is surely a bit dramatic but I didn't know it had been tried. 

 



#39 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1432 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:55 AM

How would you do that without samples or photos. What density of blades is required?

 

 

Exactly. Plenty of times too, there is still grass left in a divot when its taken - what happens then?

 

Moving on though. Did they run out of ideas when they came up with the "alternative stroke play" that has a cap on shots allowed per hole.

 

Someone should tell them we already have that. It's called Stableford.

 

Also caddies no longer allowed to line up players at address. Would love to be there when they tell the LPGA members this.


  • Madambo likes this

| GolfLink 


#40 AGQ

AGQ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:12 AM

Animal scratchings and embedded balls then, neither are dangerous and both can allow you relief in the fairway. Animal scratching especially often provides relief when you've actually hit a bad shot. 

All relief can be abused in some way, people being very liberal with the nearest point of relief is a very common one. As many on here have said, taking advantage of knowing the rules is a skill. I don't see why this would be any different and if the R&A wanted to, they could provide a very limiting definition for when relief would be provided. Ie, only an unfilled divot or only an unfilled divot or sanded divot. They could expressly forbid relief from an old divot that is covered in grass. 

I'd be interested to know how you think a rule like this could be twisted to give someone any material advantage. All it would ever do is provide equity. 

 

The embedded ball rule is being changed to through the green except when in sand, since that was brought up.

 

I think the other posts since show potential debate/problems about having the rule changed. In all honesty I don't like it when it happens, but accept the situation. Luckily this doesn't happen too often.


Fulfilling my dream to play Australia's Top 100

 

AGD 2016 - 95 played

AGD 2014 - 97 played

GA - 2016 - 85 played

GA - 2014 - 90 played


#41 Itchy4Scratch

Itchy4Scratch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4264 posts
  • LocationSE Melbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:25 AM

The embedded ball rule is being changed to through the green except when in sand, since that was brought up.

 

I think the other posts since show potential debate/problems about having the rule changed. In all honesty I don't like it when it happens, but accept the situation. Luckily this doesn't happen too often.

I do accept the situation, obviously, but if we can't even discuss improving the game than there really is no hope for it. 

To an outsider looking in, when you have rules that give you relief from things like animal scratchings after you've hit a bad shot, but get no relief when you hit a perfect shot, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think the questions/answers provided by Monty and AAA serve to highlight the pedantry that reigns in golf rules circles. The reality is, changing the rule to allow relief, even if applied in a very liberal manner such as preferred lies through the green, would have no material effect on the integrity of the game. The pros play with that local rule nearly every week as it is. 


  • Tolmij, RobNewy and Goldy like this

#42 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1432 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:44 AM

I do accept the situation, obviously, but if we can't even discuss improving the game than there really is no hope for it.

 

On the contrary, I’m in favour of a lot of the proposed changes.

 

No longer a penalty for:

  • Accidently moving ball when searching for it
  • Accidently moving ball on putting green
  • Putting with the flag stick in on the green
  • Repairing spike marks (or any mark on the green)
  • Touching the line of putt
  • Using a damaged club, even if damaged in anger.

 

All these are good changes.

 

The changes which I’m concerned about and don’t necessarily agree on (yet) are:

  • The relaxed dropping procedure
  • How we measure relief
  • 3 minutes for lost ball instead of 5
  • Touching loose impediments and grounding clubs in hazards
  • Ball "accidentally" hitting player, caddie or equipment (can guarantee this one will be abused).
  • Alternative form of stroke play (this is just pointless, rather then bad)

Edited by Monty85, 03 March 2017 - 10:02 AM.

| GolfLink 


#43 AGQ

AGQ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 10:05 AM

 

On the contrary, I’m in favour of a lot of the proposed changes.

 

No longer a penalty for:

  • Accidently moving ball when searching for it
  • Accidently moving ball on putting green
  • Putting with the flag stick in on the green
  • Repairing spike marks (or any mark on the green)
  • Touching the line of putt
  • Using a damaged club, even if damaged in anger.

 

All these are good changes.

 

The changes which I’m concerned about and don’t necessarily agree on (yet) are:

  • The relaxed dropping procedure
  • How we measure relief
  • 3 minutes for lost ball instead of 5
  • Touching loose impediments and grounding clubs in hazards
  • Alternative form of stroke play (this is just pointless, rather then bad)

 

I agree with most of your sentiments. Definitely a positive some of the changes being proposed. Especially those that might help speed up play.

 

Only ones I have a problem with is:

 

a. Dropping procedure - having to keep dropping until ball comes to rest might not be possible in certain situations. Do like the fact you can drop the ball closer to the ground when in bunker though (taking relief from casual water)

b. Replacing a damaged club due to anger. Should not be happening. Suffer the consequence of stupidity

c. Measuring relief - Should be one constant measure for all situation. Removes confusion for a start. Can see why they have introduced a set distance though. Don't think I would like two club lengths of a kids club

d. Alternate form of stroke play - More an issue with things like club championships. Would hate to see someone win having used the maximum shots on a hole rule where this would have made a difference

 

Loose impediments in hazards slightly in favour. Had a situation where leaves or branches have been near the ball in a bunker. Don't see an issue moving them. But just my opinion. Some will not agree.

 

For those wanting to help potentially influence some of these decisions, do the survey on the R&A site. They also deal with some other aspects not proposed as yet.


Fulfilling my dream to play Australia's Top 100

 

AGD 2016 - 95 played

AGD 2014 - 97 played

GA - 2016 - 85 played

GA - 2014 - 90 played


#44 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1432 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 03 March 2017 - 10:18 AM

b. Replacing a damaged club due to anger. Should not be happening. Suffer the consequence of stupidity

 

True, but the club is damaged so its still a disadvantage. A year ago I hit banged my putter in the ground while walking off a green (nothing too crazy) but the ground was really soft where i was and the putter went in and then subsequently bent the shaft. Had to putt with the wedge from then on.

 

c. Measuring relief - Should be one constant measure for all situation. Removes confusion for a start. Can see why they have introduced a set distance though. Don't think I would like two club lengths of a kids club

 

It's hardly confusing now though. You an use a club, any club, from any player. Its fast, its convenient and it works. This isn't a rule that requires amendment as far as I'm concerned. With the proposed changes, if there's no markings on clubs as suggested, then what? Tape measure? Guess? It's just making the situation worse.

 

For those wanting to help potentially influence some of these decisions, do the survey on the R&A site.

 

Yep. I plan to do just this - but not for a few weeks though. I want to hear other peoples opinions and discuss a lot further before providing my feedback.


| GolfLink 


#45 AGQ

AGQ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 03 March 2017 - 10:49 AM

True, but the club is damaged so its still a disadvantage. A year ago I hit banged my putter in the ground while walking off a green (nothing too crazy) but the ground was really soft where i was and the putter went in and then subsequently bent the shaft. Had to putt with the wedge from then on.

 

 

It's hardly confusing now though. You an use a club, any club, from any player. Its fast, its convenient and it works. This isn't a rule that requires amendment as far as I'm concerned. With the proposed changes, if there's no markings on clubs as suggested, then what? Tape measure? Guess? It's just making the situation worse.

 

 

Yep. I plan to do just this - but not for a few weeks though. I want to hear other peoples opinions and discuss a lot further before providing my feedback

Damaged clubs - we can agree to disagree. No excuse as far as I am concerned on this one.

 

Distance for Relief - Surely having one standard distance for all situations makes this easier. The rule book is quite a read. I'm all about simplifying and making it much easier to understand. For new players to the game they still they have to take all this in (actually even players who have been around some time but not really read the rules apply here also). Having one distance of measure and you can't get it wrong. I understand why they are proposing fixed distance, makes it an even playing field for everyone. Might make it slightly longer marking out, but not much. New marketing tool for club manufacturers. We have a ruler on our clubs  :)


Fulfilling my dream to play Australia's Top 100

 

AGD 2016 - 95 played

AGD 2014 - 97 played

GA - 2016 - 85 played

GA - 2014 - 90 played





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users