Rules change effective NOW!

ZWExton

Would golf be terrible if the rules allowed you to make your ball and move it anywhere you like within a 6in radius no closer to the hole if on the fairway, green, or fringe?

This would resolve the divot issues, the "ball in an impression" issues, many of the spike mark or green imperfection issues... I know it spits in the face of "play it as it lies," but why do we play it as it lies at begin with?

If you were re-inventing the game today, wouldn't you try to avoid unfair circumstances for great shots? It's not "unfair" as is because everyone plays by the same rules, but it'd be equally fair for everyone to play by rules that didn't force a terrible lie in the middle of the fairway based on luck.

I'd also be a little more forgiving of the courses I play when I end up in a spotty area of the fairway. Hitting off of hard pan in the fairway is a poor golfing experience.

Weirfan

ZWExton

Would baseball be terrible if they eliminated the batters box and batter was able to stand 3 feet closer to the pitcher?

Would football be terrible if they called it a touchdown even if you got to the 2 yard line.

All sports have rules that govern play, many can be questioned as to why we need them.

In golf there is something called rub if the green, you play the ball where it lies. If you hit a perfect drive but it rolls off into the rough or the weather is dry and it's hard pan, that's the way the game is meant to be played.

ZWExton

Weirfan

Those seem like terrible analogies, but "it's fine the way it is" is certainly a valid opinion. Like I said, if everyone is playing by those same rules then it isn't ever "unfair."

The benefit to the change I proposed would be less bad-luck results from well-hit shots. You don't hit off a sprinkler head, so being forced to hit out of a divot in the fairway is curious to me. I don't think fairway hard pan or hitting out of fairway divots is really supposed to be part of the game.

Sneakylong

Here's my suggestion for the Pro Tours. Each Tour forms a committee. This committee is there for golfers to go to if they see habitual cheating / sloppiness / basically not living up to the integrity of the game.

The committee goes to the player and makes the player aware a complaint has been taken to the committee. The whistle blower remains anonymous. This way the individual is warned with no bad blood towards another player who may not be comfortable calling him / her out in person.

They have to get back to self policing themselves. Habitual offenders will be on notice and this should help alleviate those golfers who dance to close or cross the line.

Weirfan

ZWExton

divots I can agree on, there should be a free drop from them when in the fairway.

hardpan , will in some cases be identified as GUR , but dried out , firm turf can be a course condition and is a feature some links style courses .

golf was never intended to be played under perfect conditions, That is only a North American ideal. In fact some courses don"t even supply rakes for bunkers, you go into them you are penalized, not like in North America hitting a wayward shot into a bunker is often times less penal and can often be more desirable for players than playing out of the rough. I suppose this advantage cancels out the disadvantage of the rare time a divot is landed in.

Do you remember when Jack furrowed the traps at his tourney and the spoiled PGA players whined and cried like babies. To truly experience what and how gold " should" be played play a British links style course or one that follows that style. Its an eye opener

ZWExton

Weirfan

That's a good point, that lies aren't supposed to be perfect (except on the tee.) Need to think of the conditions more like wind, I guess. Hate it sometimes, but never considered wind wasn't supposed to be part of the game.

PA-PLAYA

Sneakylong

I believe with a good deal of certainty that you're right about Anna and the "naked eye" rule. However I don't agree with that the new rule would've vindicated Lexi.

You could've blindfolded her, spun her around several times, then had her replace her ball while still blindfolded and she would've probably come just as close. It was truly that obvious, there was very little "reasonable" about it. Maybe had it been a dimple or two? Different story. But the effective difference equating the circumference of a ball?

Not buying it.

Sneakylong

PA-PLAYA

She gave her explanation yesterday. She always aligns her putt with a dot and was going to tap it in, but her father has been on her for missing short putts like the one she had. So she put her coin down and spun the ball around to line up the dot.

She also said the greens were impeccable and she wasn't trying to avoid a spike mark (although tamping down spike marks will be allowed in 2019).

My interpretation of the rule change is if this happened again she would be approached and all she would say was that in her mind she made a 'reasonable attempt' to replace the ball back to it's original spot.

The original rule change for 2019 stated that the player cannot be second guessed. Not sure that language is in the immediate rule change effective now.

Also, I'm not so sure without the aid of zoomed in high def it would be as evident with the naked eye. What are we talking less than 1/2 an inch?

I will admit that the 'reasonable judgement' rule is somewhat ambiguous. However, IMO the injustice to the rest of the field by her not getting her mark exact and being off by such a small amount is much, much less than the injustice of 4 strokes imposed on her.

And again serial abusers will be exposed if they take advantage of this rule change. And if they had never allowed viewer referees this would've never seen the light of day.

People can reasonably disagree, but I come down on the side that both Lexi and Anna were screwed by petty, insignificant rules violations. These were huge injustices and because of the outcry the USGA and R&A are try to make sure this doesn't happen again. I agree with what they're doing.

Sneakylong

The best analogy I can come up with is Lexi Thompson was given 4 days in jail for stepping less than 1/2 an inch outside the designated jaywalking area.

I think where you come down on these recent events (Lexi, Anna and Dustin) is what type initial reaction did you have with each incident?

Me, my gut reaction was this is ridiculous. I was outraged that such trivial things could have such a dramatic impact on the outcome of each tournament. Total injustice (Dustin avoided it by winning despite the ridiculous infraction).

Others I'm sure thought these are the rules (despite being insignificant), had no gut reaction or outrage and calmly said they broke the rules and they deserve the result. Nothing to see here. Move on.

It's kind of the way we look at politics. Some see our current president as a competent leader and some of us see him as a narcissistic, pathological lying, incompetent idiot.

It all comes down to the eye of the beholder. (winking emoji)

darpar

Like someone mentioned before,what about when someone moves their coin/marker that is on another players line,how often does the ball get replaced back in EXACTLY the same original spot?
After all,now you're making two movements of the coin with the use of a putter head as a point of reference.
Also did Lexi really (inadvertently/carelessly IMO) gain an unfair (1/4") advantage on the field,where as the field gained a HUGE advantage on her?
Publicly name the arm chair referee callers and this will all stop.....hope the new ruling takes care of this BS! 😉

PA-PLAYA

Sneaky, with all due respect - Lexi's mark on her ball doesn't supersede the mark she placed on the ground marking her ball.

That marker represents a specific reference, not a spot colored by a Sharpie on her ball. In a modern day court of law, that would not hold up.

I guess where I have the most difficulty understanding the premise of the new ruling, at least as it pertains to this particular situation, is... what is the standard? An inch? Two inches? Three inches? Six inches?

No standard has been established. It's now left up to the player, and yet another "committee" (how 2017ish... if we're not sure of what the standard is - let's form a committee!) to determine what is or isn't acceptable, what is or isn't reasonable.

Imagine me asking my son, "although you exercised poor judgement driving under the influence, was it your intention to veer across the centerline and kill two passengers of another vehicle traveling the opposite direction?"

I really don't see much of a difference here.

Say what you will about the distaste of viewer call-ins. You'll get no argument from me about it. But it seems that in this era of "doing what is most convenient and popular" versus "maintaining a certain standard" - golf would be better off served sticking to the facts (or a specific standard of play), even if in doing so, in certain situations in which a player claims they unknowingly committed a rule infraction that was spotted via high-def camera replay, they completely waive the signing an incorrect scorecard penalty to find a more acceptable compromise by doing little more than assessing only the initial penalty.

My problem is there is no definable standard, there is no definition of "reasonable."

And in the end, the controversy that the governing bodies/tours are trying to avoid (ignore) - will only add to even more controversy and fallout.

There has to be a standard. Allowing the golfer to determine that standard based on "intent" or "reasonable" based on their own personal interpretations and capabilities simply won't avoid controversy going forward.

Sneakylong

PA-PLAYA

I guess I'd answer what is the reasonable doubt standard in our judicial system? The answer is there is no exact standard. It's subjective to everyone.

There can't be an exact standard in what we're discussing either. Like I've mentioned before and darpar mentioned above when you move your mark away one or two putter head lengths because it's in the line of another player.

What exact standard is used when everyone looks up and picks a spot off in the distance and places their mark in reference to something only they see?

When they replace their mark did they get the exact angle from whatever they referenced correct? I guess to answer your question for me at least the standard is common sense. Otherwise they should all carry tape measures, slide rules etc. and be able to video replay questionable marks on their cell phones in real time using super imposed high def.

I'm not going to change your mind and you're not changing mine. Everyone has an opinion. Paul Azinger wants to keep the viewer referees for example.

I guess it comes down to (again) what was your reaction to what happened in these cases cited? Mine was an immediate visceral reaction of injustice. I think that was the majority reaction, otherwise you wouldn't see the USGA and R&A acting so fast to try and remedy these injustices.

Our judicial system is far from perfect and perfecting the rules of golf can never be perfected. IMO we're a little closer to being at least reasonable. And yes reasonable is subjective. But for me what happened to Lexi, Anna and Dustin was extremely unreasonable.

PA-PLAYA

Sneakylong

I definitely understand the premise of your argument. My argument is that the governing bodies aren't going to reduce the potential for further controversy simply because they've decided to allow the input of "reasonability" via the player's determination in helping them figure out how to proceed, whether they absolve the player completely or enforce a penalty outright.

Granted, we might come upon these type instances maybe once or twice every few years. Luckily they don't occur every week. But when they do occur, particularly in a major tournament when there's a lot more significance in the outcome - it only stands to reason that more people are tuning in, more people have an opinion of how it was dealt with, etc.

We might as well accept it that we've officially entered into the sports era of asterisks.

There really is no simple fix or easy solution that's gonna make everyone happy. But the act of enforcing the rules per the letter, in itself, hasn't fueled the controversy. The viewers being the ones pointing out the infractions is what has fed the fallout.

Sneakylong

PA-PLAYA

For me it's more the rule itself. I guess I'd put it this way. It's a matter of the degree of reasonableness I suppose.

What I mean by that is, I'd rather see someone 'get away with' a little unintentional sloppiness than to see someone get a 4 stroke penalty a day later for getting their mark wrong by less than 1/2 of an inch. For me that is outrageously unreasonable.

I understand that for the letter of the rule sticklers this seems unreasonable and for them a 4 stroke penalty seems reasonable. And since people have different subjective opinions of what reasonable means I think the USGA and R&A have struck a fair balance.

darpar

I say just leave it to the players/walking rules official in each group to "police" themselves and totally
dump/disregard any outside influence that might or might not see something that could alter the outcome of an event.
THAT would level the playing field,because is it really fair that certain players/groupings get WAY more airtime
than a player who just barely makes the cut and not one of their shots ever sees the light of tv?
Who knows what the hell they may or may not be doing back in the 'just made the cut pack'?
I have a feeling that a lot more rules infractions occur on tour, (either knowingly or otherwise) than we'll ever know or be privy too!

After all,this goofy game of golf has more rules,decisions,decisions of decisions etc. than any other sport,!
Even the governing bodies like the USGA/R&A have a hard time figuring what to make of certain situations
involving players,rulings,playing conditions etc.,so don't expect every pro to know all the rules....
Hell it's hard enough just getting the ball to go from point A to point B in the fewest # of strokes!

PA-PLAYA

These days tour pros don't need to know all of the rules, but obviously they need to be fairly familiar with the most basic ones that are encountered on a normal basis. And even then it's become pretty standard to have several rules officials roaming the course during the round that they have access to.

I also agree about the disparity in televised coverage from one round to the next, but on that same token - players who aren't being covered on Thursday because they went out early are generally covered on the coverage Friday afternoon. Or to put it this way - the cameras are out there recording anyway. Obviously there are players that still don't get the airtime even during the televised coverage times, but that's just the way it is. It's not fair scrutiny, but still about as fair as it can possibly be given the obvious.

PA-PLAYA

Sneakylong

I can accept that.

Weirfan

Sneakylong

The issue becomes who decides what is reasonable and what is not, what was intentional and what was not, what could have provided an advantage what could not have.

In Lexi's case, the ruling was not made based on subjectivity or whether or not she gained any advantage. The rule (s) is in place and penalty applied because she could have gained an advantage by improperly placing her coin. It would be more confusing, controversial and conflicting to base the decision on a subjective interpretation . Having rules avoid subjectivity is so much better. (Whether or not the penalty fits the crime is another discussion)

I'm paraphrasing something I read but .....Based on the existing rules, the officials made an objective ruling using fact not a subjective interpretation . attempts should be made to reduce and eliminate all subjectivity in rulings. Did Lexi improperly place her ball and play it from there? Yes she did , that's a penalty ( no subjectivity) Did Lexi sign an incorrect scorecard? Yes she did ( no subjectivity) that's a penalty. A correct application of the rules in both cases.

Sneakylong

Weirfan

I imagine the rules officials for that tournament will decide what reasonable is. It will be subjective just as every jury is subjective when they decide what reasonable doubt means to them in the case they're deciding on.

Again, we can't change history or undo an injustice. But the USGA and R&A have made it more difficult for these type injustices going forward. Missing her mark by less than 1/2" isn't gaining an advantage IMO. Neither is nicking a grain of sand only perceivable by magnification. Neither is unexplained outside forces moving your ball on a green. In Lexi's case missing her mark by 1/2" would fall under 'reasonable judgement' or 'reasonable attempt' language.

We're going in circles. But going forward Lexi (reasonable judgment), Anna (naked eye) and Dustin (outside forces) would not be assessed penalties if it happened today. Some of us thinks that's a good thing, but I understand sticklers for unreasonable / insignificant rules don't like it.

Bottom line. The rules have changed and for the better IMO. Time to move on.

PA-PLAYA

If we're gonna talk about perceived injustices, at least the ones that really and royally stand out... it's hard to find anything that remotely compares to Roberto Di Vicenzo and the 1968 Masters.

Interestingly enough, Roberto just celebrated his 94th birthday a few weeks back.

I agree with you about many things, Sneaky, but in this one point in particular... in the modern age of electronic scoreboards and what have you - the penalty for signing an incorrect scorecard seems extremely outdated to say the very least.

« Previous Page