Why the rules need to be simplified

PA-PLAYA

So it takes the rules official intervening, and even then an additional 5 minutes to sort through the myriad of separate conditions to determine free relief from casual water on a cart path.

Why not just give a player the option to drop on either side of the path in these type situations, as long as the relief being taken is within the 1-club length and no closer to the hole? Because an overwhelming majority of the time, the amateur player isn't looking at the nearest point of relief, but rather the drop area (within one club length, no closer to the hole) that offers him the most unobstructed path to the green anyway.

This is precisely why a lot of amateurs players just simply ignore the rules when they play. Not only is it time consuming, sometimes it just seems completely impractical.

Weirfan

It's a pretty straightforward ruling here, Jordan should have been able to do this without the official.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

I agree. Two relief situations are obvious.

But the bigger point is that if the rules were amended to permit a player to drop on either side of the path, no closer to the hole, 30 seconds likely wouldn't have morphed into a 5-minute geometry/physics class.

I'd lay a hefty wager that most amateurs in that situation, even those who "claim" to play per the letter of the rules, would've casually picked up the ball and dropped to the right of the path. At least in a non-tournament setting anyway.

ode

Funny thing is, his toe was still in the water when he played the shot....at least it appears to be.

sdandrea1

That rule book is a mountain built from molehills.......things could be so much simpler. Just like US Tax code. But the monstrosity now exists and it's really hard to simplify.

Rickochet

What a bunch of crap. After all of the concern that his left foot might be in the water when taking relief, he hit the shot with his left foot in the water. So the rule says that you must take full relief for the drop but not full relief to hit the ball? What kind of ruling is that? Surely the official was watching when he hit it.

PA-PLAYA

Rickochet

Could've been the camera angle, as a straight-on view would've been more revealing.

Nevertheless, the point remains - this would've been avoidable had the rules been just a bit more practical.

In my 30 years of playing, 20 years competitive, I've never seen a single instance of an opponent trying to use the cart path as a target to gain an advantage of some sort. Either side, no closer to the hole, move on and keep the pace moving was my point.

Rickochet

PA-PLAYA Either side, no closer to the hole, move on and keep the pace moving was my point.

Taking relief on the right side of the cart path would have taken the bushes on the left out of play. Having the option of dropping on either side of the path can make a difference of maybe 6 or 7 feet which can make a huge difference concerning an obstruction. This was just a very unusual situation having casual water on the cart path. And, these guys are playing for big bucks. Every stroke counts. I think it was more important to get it done right, not get it done fast.

Maybe to simply this change the rule to no hitting off of a cart path period. Take a drop on the side of closest relief.

PA-PLAYA

Rickochet

Just my personal opinion on the matter, but as long as the same standard is applied equitably to every player in the field - then it's obviously fair play.

I'm just offering that "IF" the USGA is interested in simplifying the rules, particularly in this situation as it relates to amateur play, (and providing they don't see any willingness to bifurcate the rules between pro and amateur) then make a simple concession that either side of the path, no closer to the hole, would be more practical and much more expedient.

I personally don't want to see certain rules changed just for the sake of "dumbing down" the game... the most common complaint is playing out of a divot. Well... I understand the reason why the USGA wouldn't want to go down that road, as the conditions of what is or isn't defined as a divot would require a 500-word discertation, creating even more subjectivity and uncertainty.

This isn't one of those instances imo. Pretty much straight-forward, and since a majority of amateur players are either ignorant of the concept of "nearest point of relief, no closer to the hole," or understand the concept but still look to bend the rule out of convenience/expediency/both - maybe this particular situation is the perfect example where a more relaxed rule that permits two options would, in the end, accomplish more of what they seem to be searching for as it relates to simplifying certain rules out of respect to keeping the pace moving.

I mean - dropping a ball in a relief or penalty situation from shoulder-length versus an inch above the ground doesn't really change that much with regard to how the ball lies. I will concede that dropping an inch from the ground removes the likelihood of the ball rolling beyond the typical 1-club relief boundary, but beyond that - it doesn't really change the lie dynamics substantially (outside of dropping in a sand bunker). But those situations are so rare that it really doesn't impact much of anything outside of the potential time saved with further drops.

We have a notable situation at our club, our 3rd hole on a long par5, with a cart path near the boundary of shrubs and a hazard, where it is almost routine to see this rule being abused, as proper relief would leave a situation nearly identical as that of the video with Spieth that I posted above. Player A lays up short of the pond on his second shot, bounces left and ends up somewhere near the middle of the path because of the contour of the fairway/cart path. Proper relief per the rules, most times, means dropping behind the shrubs (that are within the hazard). Now he has 150 yards to the green, but has no shot because the proper drop puts the shrubs in the hazard between him and the hole. Now obviously he has the option of either playing from the path (taking no relief but potentially damaging his 7-iron) or dropping behind the hazard within the 1-club relief but then having no shot to the green.

So what does Player A do? He conveniently assumes that his ideal relief is on the other side of the cart path where he has an unobstructed path to the green, when technically it is not.

That puts his opponent in a situation where he has to contest the drop (if it were a tournament situation) and generally requires a ruling from the head pro to determine the specifics within the rules, otherwise a pissing contest ensues. Which isn't appreciated by either party really.

Where if the rule was relaxed, the player would have the option to either (1) play from the path without relief, or (2) proceed to either side of the path (within 1 club, no nearer the hole) for his relief drop. No pissing contest, no debate, no 3 minutes waiting for the head pro to come out and oversee the process.

I just think there are many more of these type instances impacting amateur players versus dropping from shoulder-length versus 1-inch drop above the ground.

And I will tell you that in casual, friendly play - I'm not calling the guy out for dropping on the wrong side of the path, and I don't think I represent the minority in that situation. So why not just make that concession, if for no other reason that to avoid controversy/pace of play issues?

It just seems like a very rigid, player-unfriendly ruling.... IF that's the type of situation the USGA is hoping to address.

As it relates to me personally - I always honor that rule. I'm not, however, gonna ding up my 7-iron for an unobstructed shot to the green. So I'm forced to play well to the right of the green.

Or either forced to be a rules nazi in a tournament situation to opponents facing that exact situation.

I'm probably not explaining this very well.... with a very narrow lay-up area on the second shot of this hole (pond in front, pond to the right, cart path and marked garden hazard to the left) with what is effectively a pinched 15-yard fairway - there's not much room for forgiveness.

It's a design flaw imo... but this is one of those situations where changing that rule would make things infinitely more simple.

LBlack14

Speaking of 500 word disertations......what the hell were we talking about again??

PA-PLAYA

LBlack14

LOL

Cart path relief, 1 club-length on either side of the path, no closer to the hole. 😉

ronsc1985

I don't know why they even have that rule. Cart paths are hardly ever anywhere where a straight shot ends up. Just play it as it lies or take an unplayable if you can't hit that type of shot or have a great concern about scratching your club. You can always get the ball off the cart path with a putter if all else fails.

What has screwed up golf is all the deviations allowed from play it as it lies in the name of "fairness".

When I started caddying and playing many years ago the general rule, with almost no exceptions, was find it and hit it or take an unplayable. Ground under repair most always had someone actually repairing something or temporarily on a break.

These days most all the deviations from "play it as it lies", are caused by wayward shots. If one of those crooked shots causes a problem or even a straight shot ends up in a less then desirable lie, tough shitski, as the Russians say.

Getting rid of all the various drop rules and decisions would save a lot of time, bits and trees.

PA-PLAYA

ronsc1985

Stop being a hater. LOL... j/k

sdandrea1

I usually play those shots right off the cart path..........................if my playing partner will let me use one of his irons.

rsvman

sdandrea1 LOL.

ode

Depends if cart path is concrete, blacktop, dirt, or some sort of gravel....no way I'm hitting it off concrete or blacktop unless somethings on the line! And Jordan's whole schtick was to try to get as favorable a drop as possible...rules be damned....golfers are no different than other pro athletes, it just works a bit a different in golf, as there are not split second decisions that are made by the officials....there should never be a screw up in golf if an official is called over, as they have what seems like an eternity to figure I t out, plus the use of a walky talky to p hone another uptight friend.

DC300

I do think there should be a set of rules for ams and Pros that are far less of a pain in the ass. I'd be in favor of a 1 club length, no closer to the hole or play as it lies rule in all settings on this one though. Yeah, you probably missed, but that is to be expected. Keep the game moving. I feel like I could re write the rule book to fit on the crown of some of the Super GI drivers, but that probably wouldn't be conforming.