What's The Most Stupid Rule In Golf?

Atlantic1

Where does your vote go?

For me, it's having to play a ball out of a divot on the fairway.

I can't understand why a hole on the fairway has to be made bigger.

Whyner

Go to sleep dude. Or, find a spare sod and repair both.

Mr. Rager

Atlantic1 wrote: »

Where does your vote go?

For me, it's having to play a ball out of a divot on the fairway.

I can't understand why a hole on the fairway has to be made bigger.

Yeah i agree. just don't get it either.

soundsham

Wow........ The looney bin is missing another gobsh1te !

antoobrien

how about the one that isn't in the rulebook - when a group falls one clear hole behind the group on front, each member gets a 2 shot penalty. It's a disgrace that a 4ball in stableford takes 4 hours on a course of 5800m and this would cut out slow play very handy

danthefan

antoobrien wrote: »

how about the one that isn't in the rulebook - when a group falls one clear hole behind the group on front, each member gets a 2 shot penalty. It's a disgrace that a 4ball in stableford takes 4 hours on a course of 5800m and this would cut out slow play very handy

Absolutely not. One player can hold up a fourball, yet you'd penalise his/her playing partners.

GreeBo

1 shot penalty for hitting your own bag, caddie, equipment.

I have never encountered a scenario where this was anything other than already a bad thing. Why is another penalty required? Its not like you'd do it on purpose.

Miley Byrne

GreeBo wrote: »

1 shot penalty for hitting your own bag, caddie, equipment.

I have never encountered a scenario where this was anything other than already a bad thing. Why is another penalty required? Its not like you'd do it on purpose.

I can think of certain scenarios where fellas might use it to their advantage. Like laying the bag at the far side of the green before chipping to create a backstop in the event of the chip going too far. You think there should be no penalty for this? How do you define what's to your advantage and what's not to your advantage?

Gophur

The Law was introduced after the killing of seven caddies in the South Clare Jummy Bruen quarter finals in 1966. Only for it the poor caddies would be extinct!

GreeBo

denisoc16 wrote: »

I can think of certain scenarios where fellas might use it to their advantage. Like laying the bag at the far side of the green before chipping to create a backstop in the event of the chip going too far. You think there should be no penalty for this? How do you define what's to your advantage and what's not to your advantage?

I would see a difference between this and accidentally hitting your bag.
I would define the difference in the same way as the rules define the difference between touching the putting surface and touching the putting surface to test it. Its up to the golfer to play responsibly and ethically.

mike12

Getting a penalty for saying take your time over that putt

Miley Byrne

GreeBo wrote: »

I would see a difference between this and accidentally hitting your bag.

That's just it though, it's easier to penalise any shot hitting your bag than just penalising someone "accidently" hitting his bag.

soundsham

thought this rule was gone...??

GreeBo

soundsham wrote: »

thought this rule was gone...??

Just reduced, used to be 2!

denisoc16 wrote:

That's just it though, it's easier to penalise any shot hitting your bag than just penalising someone "accidently" hitting his bag.

But the rest of the rules dont follow that logic (take my example above)
Unless you are deliberately doing it then it shouldnt be a penalty.
I would see it in the exact same way as accidentally hitting your opponents ball, sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps. If you do it deliberately then its a penalty, otherwise its not.

dotcom13

Surley the double hit rule. Penalty of 1

If you hit a good strike out of the bunker but you double hit the ball i.e. second hit in mid air!! I played the other day and it happened to in deep rough. Find it very unfair.

Daithio9

dotcom13 wrote: »

Surley the double hit rule. Penalty of 1

If you hit a good strike out of the bunker but you double hit the ball i.e. second hit in mid air!! I played the other day and it happened to in deep rough. Find it very unfair.

So you think you should be allowed to pick up your with your club face and then hit it again in mid air ala hurling?.

Daithio9

GreeBo wrote: »

Just reduced, used to be 2!

But the rest of the rules dont follow that logic (take my example above)
Unless you are deliberately doing it then it shouldnt be a penalty.
I would see it in the exact same way as accidentally hitting your opponents ball, sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps. If you do it deliberately then its a penalty, otherwise its not.

Unfortunately there is no possible way to prove intent, so the rule has no other option but to be in the form it is.

KP81

It's not a current rule but until 1952 there was the "Stymie". This was where if an oppenent's ball was in your way on the green it was not lifted but had to be played around, a bit like a snooker. See link.

dotcom13

Daithio9 wrote: »

So you think you should be allowed to pick up your with your club face and then hit it again in mid air ala hurling?.

Obviously not, thats not a proper golf stroke (the picking up of the ball part.)

be realistic please.

Daithio9

dotcom13 wrote: »

Obviously not, thats not a proper golf stroke (the picking up of the ball part.)

be realistic please.

Nothing is obvious only what's obvious, and it's obvious the people who seem to question the wisdom of the rules are seriously lacking in the IQ department.

heavyballs

dotcom13 wrote: »

Obviously not, thats not a proper golf stroke (the picking up of the ball part.)

be realistic please.

ok he's not bein realistic but the point is it has to be a penalty,you hit the ball twice,agree that's it's impossible to do for gain but it could help ala Peter Hansen and imo he knew it but that's another topic for another day

oh and btw a double hit isn't a proper golf stoke either

dotcom13

Well I just think for a totally innocent and unintentional mistake is a need less penalty.

It is a proper golf stroke (by way of the swinging action), you swing the club the exact same way as any other shot, it's the way the ball reacts after that that is the difference. The ball come out slowly out of the bunker, but the club head speed catches up with it and hits it again. That why I think it's a stupid rule. Everyone I'm sure has some gripe about the rule thats mine. And it never happened to me (yet)!

GreeBo

Daithio9 wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no possible way to prove intent, so the rule has no other option but to be in the form it is.

disagree with this totally. As described already, other rules are based on intent, so why the lack of uniformity?
Same for the double hit, though thats an even clearer case imo

Daithio9

GreeBo wrote: »

disagree with this totally. As described already, other rules are based on intent, so why the lack of uniformity?
Same for the double hit, though thats an even clearer case imo

Ok tell us how you prove intent then?.

GreeBo

Daithio9 wrote: »

Ok tell us how you prove intent then?.

Its up to the player to govern themselves.
The rules should be consistent throughout the game; in the same way that
- testing the surface of a bunker with your feet
- testing the surface of the green with your hand
- grounding your club in a hazard to stop yourself falling over

are all examples of being a penalty ONLY if there was intent.
Why should one rule be different than so many others?

heavyballs

GreeBo wrote: »

Its up to the player to govern themselves.
The rules should be consistent throughout the game; in the same way that
- testing the surface of a bunker with your feet
- testing the surface of the green with your hand
- grounding your club in a hazard to stop yourself falling over

are all examples of being a penalty ONLY if there was intent.
Why should one rule be different than so many others?

because you've hit the ball twice,different than all the above

GreeBo

heavyballs wrote: »

because you've hit the ball twice,different than all the above

First of all, Im talking about the penalty for hitting your own equipment/caddy

But anyway, why should hitting it twice need "another" penalty? You are already screwed 99% of the time you hit it twice, the other 1% of the time is a pure fluke.
Also, it would be pretty difficult to deliberately double hit, thus rendering the question of intent a moot point...

Obni

I think the whole 'non-contact' element of the rules should be dropped for people taking more than two practice swings, or wiggling their club head for longer than 10 seconds. I also believe that if I were standing behind them with a 7-iron in my hand ready to administer the appropriate penalty, it would help them focus on their game.

dotcom13

I'm with you GreeBo, the rules do have an inconsistant flavor in some areas, if they didn't this thread would not have been posted in the first place.

How you could consitantly and or intentiantly double hit (or hit equipment) and expect a better outcome on a regular basis is beyond me.

I very much doubt players would intentially double hit (or hit equipemnt) on a regular basis to gain a better outcome, if they do they are cheaters and you will always have cheaters in very game, no need to penalise every other player to cater for a few...

What goes around come around in my opinion! if you decide to cheat it will come back to bite you else where. :pac:

heavyballs

dotcom13 wrote: »

I'm with you GreeBo, the rules do have an inconsistant flavor in some areas, if they didn't this thread would not have been posted in the first place.

How you could consitantly and or intentiantly double hit (or hit equipment) and expect a better outcome on a regular basis is beyond me.

I very much doubt players would intentially double hit (or hit equipemnt) on a regular basis to gain a better outcome, if they do they are cheaters and you will always have cheaters in very game, no need to penalise every other player to cater for a few...

What goes around come around in my opinion! if you decide to cheat it will come back to bite you else where. :pac:

i'm not arguing the case of intent ,i agree with the above,although even though it's impossible to do it on purpose you could (ala P Hansen) gain an advantage from it
We could go on forever,some of the rules are a joke but i still reckon a double hit is straightforward,2 shots,if it was allowed you would get some cheatin cnuts scoopin the ball out of the rough claimin it was a legal double hit,and beleive me there are a lot of them around

GreeBo

heavyballs wrote: »

i'm not arguing the case of intent ,i agree with the above,although even though it's impossible to do it on purpose you could (ala P Hansen) gain an advantage from it
We could go on forever,some of the rules are a joke but i still reckon a double hit is straightforward,2 shots,if it was allowed you would get some cheatin cnuts scoopin the ball out of the rough claimin it was a legal double hit,and beleive me there are a lot of them around

But you can equally gain an advantage by hitting your opponents bag for example and there is no penalty. If you really wanted to you could each leave your bag in a position to help someones else ball..where do you draw the line?

I dont believe you need to penalise everyone to prevent some people who will cheat anyway. As above, you are already screwed 99% of the time so why add the extra +1. RANDA might be thinking along the same lines as they areduced it from +2 to +1 already.

Daithio9

GreeBo wrote: »

Its up to the player to govern themselves.
The rules should be consistent throughout the game; in the same way that
- testing the surface of a bunker with your feet
- testing the surface of the green with your hand
- grounding your club in a hazard to stop yourself falling over

are all examples of being a penalty ONLY if there was intent.
Why should one rule be different than so many others?

I don't know where your going with this and tbh I think you don't really know either.
The rule imo is very clear cut and removes any ambiguity or potential for confrontation on the course when 2 players could disagree about "intent".
Imo if you're stupid enough to leave your bag/equipment on or near your line of play, then tough sh!t, take your penalty and move on.
Also how you can't see this rule been easily exploited by certain types of players, then I must say you are extremely naive or just way too trusting.

GreeBo

Daithio9 wrote: »

I don't know where your going with this and tbh I think you don't really know either.

Im perfectly clear on my direction with this, thanks.

Daithio9 wrote: »

The rule imo is very clear cut and removes any ambiguity or potential for confrontation on the course when 2 players could disagree about "intent".

If you re-read any of my posts you will see that my point is that there are already rules that are solely based on intent. Why not one more?

Daithio9 wrote: »

Also how you can't see this rule been easily exploited by certain types of players, then I must say you are extremely naive or just way too trusting.

It could be exploited just as easily as the other rules I have provided before. Thats exactly the point.

shawpower

I heard something very insightful when I was talking to a more "senior" golfer about rules recently. He said that the rules of golf are not there to give you an advantage in any situation, rather that they are there to detail "fair" play.

So if you are trying to figure out if you are within the rules by doing something in any situation, consider whether you'll gain any advantage from it. If the answer is yes, then you can be sure you'll breach the rules by doing it. Similarly if you have done something and want to know if you've inadvertantly broken a rule, the same theory applies.

In relation to the point about hitting bags, if you hit your own bag you can get an advantage from it, but you don't have control over someone elses bag so it wouldn't be "fair" to suffer a penalty from it.

I guess it doesn't cover all situations, but comes pretty close.

GreeBo

shawpower wrote: »

In relation to the point about hitting bags, if you hit your own bag you can get an advantage from it, but you don't have control over someone elses bag so it wouldn't be "fair" to suffer a penalty from it.

Sure "you can" get an advantage, but you can get an advantage from lots of things in golf, hitting th flagstick or a rake for example. The penalty should be given if you deliberately hit your bag to gain or attempt to gain an advantage.

If you hit your bag 10yrds away off a tee shot on a par5 you probably didnt mean it and are already "penalised" imo.

Jimdagym

GreeBo wrote: »

If you hit your bag 10yrds away off a tee shot on a par5 you probably didnt mean it and are already "penalised" imo.

Especially if its 10 yards behind you....

shawpower

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure "you can" get an advantage, but you can get an advantage from lots of things in golf, hitting th flagstick or a rake for example. The penalty should be given if you deliberately hit your bag to gain or attempt to gain an advantage.

If you hit your bag 10yrds away off a tee shot on a par5 you probably didnt mean it and are already "penalised" imo.

Stuff like the flag and rake don't come into it as they are part of the golf course, so not a fair comparison. In the same way getting a favourable bounce off a tree is an advantage, but you're never going to get penalised for it. Getting a penalty for hitting your own bag off the tee does seem strange, but on the flip side is there a situation where someone could place their bag in such a way to try to force them to shape their shot in a particular way? Probably not, and I'd agree with you on your point overall that unless there is intent, it does seem unfair.

As I said in my other post, that "guideline" is not meant as a 1 rule fits all kind of thing, but I thought it was a handy starting point for someone trying to get a handle on the rules. There are obviously strange/stupid rules that it won't cover, which is what this thread is about I guess.

dotcom13

What about the rule where you ball is laying up against the rake in the bunker on a slope?

Obviously you have to move the rake to hit the shot but if the ball moves it's a penalty!

I didn't leave the rake there!!! could have been a play 5 groups ahead!

Jasonw

dotcom13 wrote: »

What about the rule where you ball is laying up against the rake in the bunker on a slope?

Obviously you have to move the rake to hit the shot but if the ball moves it's a penalty!

It's not a penalty.

if your ball is lying against a rake on a slope you mark the ball, remove the rake and if the ball moves you must replace it.

GreeBo

Jasonw wrote: »

It's not a penalty.

if your ball is lying against a rake on a slope you mark the ball, remove the rake and if the ball moves you must replace it.

If you cannot replace it then its a penalty, which can easily happen with the stupid places people leave rakes.

conno16

i know we've discussed this before but banning mobiles on the course is a little OTT in my book
nothing wrong with taking/making a call when walking up the fairway the 300 yards to take your 2nd shot
we live in an age where information is key
its not advisable to cut yourself off for 4/4.5 hours
clearly there is a time and place for phones though

ShriekingSheet

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure "you can" get an advantage, but you can get an advantage from lots of things in golf, hitting th flagstick or a rake for example. The penalty should be given if you deliberately hit your bag to gain or attempt to gain an advantage.

If you hit your bag 10yrds away off a tee shot on a par5 you probably didnt mean it and are already "penalised" imo.

You're talking nonsense. I agree with you that in many cases no advantage is gained by hitting your equipment, but in plenty of cases, there is advantage. A thinned bunker shot being stopped on the far side of the green by your trolley, for example.

Any honest, decent golfer could make such a mistake, with no "intent" to gain an advantage whatsoever. But an advantage is gained none the less. Then mix in the miscrients who do intend to gain an advantage. How does your proposed rule deal with these very seperate characters?

So instead of basing a rule on "intent", where you'd need your solicitor caddying for you to sort matters out, the R&A have put a clear marker down.

This simplifies life greatly, based on the clear logic that a player has control over where he/she leaves their gear. Players know the rule. So anyone leaving their bag 10 yards ahead of a tee, or on the far side of a green while they pitch, has themselves to blame if such a penalty is incurred.

How difficult is it to leave your bag behind you when you hit? Instead of getting into all this "intent" stuff? It's not murder/manslaughter.

danthefan

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

You're talking nonsense. I agree with you that in many cases no advantage is gained by hitting your equipment, but in plenty of cases, there is advantage. A thinned bunker shot being stopped on the far side of the green by your trolley, for example.

Any honest, decent golfer could make such a mistake, with no "intent" to gain an advantage whatsoever. But an advantage is gained none the less. Then mix in the miscrients who do intend to gain an advantage. How does your proposed rule deal with these very seperate characters?

So instead of basing a rule on "intent", where you'd need your solicitor caddying for you to sort matters out, the R&A have put a clear marker down.

This simplifies life greatly, based on the clear logic that a player has control over where he/she leaves their gear. Players know the rule. So anyone leaving their bag 10 yards ahead of a tee, or on the far side of a green while they pitch, has themselves to blame if such a penalty is incurred.

How difficult is it to leave your bag behind you when you hit? Instead of getting into all this "intent" stuff? It's not murder/manslaughter.

I completely agree. It is very easy to leave your equipment in such a position that it's just not possible to hit it with your ball.

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

You're talking nonsense. I agree with you that in many cases no advantage is gained by hitting your equipment, but in plenty of cases, there is advantage. A thinned bunker shot being stopped on the far side of the green by your trolley, for example.

Any honest, decent golfer could make such a mistake, with no "intent" to gain an advantage whatsoever. But an advantage is gained none the less. Then mix in the miscrients who do intend to gain an advantage. How does your proposed rule deal with these very seperate characters?

So instead of basing a rule on "intent", where you'd need your solicitor caddying for you to sort matters out, the R&A have put a clear marker down.

This simplifies life greatly, based on the clear logic that a player has control over where he/she leaves their gear. Players know the rule. So anyone leaving their bag 10 yards ahead of a tee, or on the far side of a green while they pitch, has themselves to blame if such a penalty is incurred.

How difficult is it to leave your bag behind you when you hit? Instead of getting into all this "intent" stuff? It's not murder/manslaughter.

With the greatest of respect, youve managed to entirely miss the point.
The R&A have not put a clear marker down as the continue to have somerules that are purely penalised based on intent.
Again, in case you missed them the first few times,
- testing the surface of a green
- testing the sand in a bunker
- hitting your opponents ball on the green

All only penalised if you intended to gain from it.

So "my rule" would deal with it in the exact same way that the R&A already deals with the above rules. That way you wouldnt get penalised when your ball rebounds off a tree and hits you.
The rules are not meant to prevent and penalise every cheat in the game, if they were they would be written very differently.

ShriekingSheet

GreeBo wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, youve managed to entirely miss the point.
The R&A have not put a clear marker down as the continue to have somerules that are purely penalised based on intent.
Again, in case you missed them the first few times,
- testing the surface of a green
- testing the sand in a bunker
- hitting your opponents ball on the green

All only penalised if you intended to gain from it.

So "my rule" would deal with it in the exact same way that the R&A already deals with the above rules. That way you wouldnt get penalised when your ball rebounds off a tree and hits you.
The rules are not meant to prevent and penalise every cheat in the game, if they were they would be written very differently.

No, I see the point your trying to make re: consistency in how the put together rules, but you're off the mark. "Intent" is not a central part of the above three rules. Explain your argument that it is, because I'm at a loss. There's minor bits and pieces throughout the rules that do rely on intent, but nothing as concrete as your back stopping a rolling ball.

The very idea of intent being a core part of rule making is ridiculous...
I meant to break the rules: penalty.
I didn't mean to break the rules: no penalty.

Regardless, your suggestion of how the equipment rule should be changed would make for a far worse rule.

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

No, I see the point your trying to make re: consistency in how the put together rules, but you're off the mark. "Intent" is not a central part of the above three rules. Explain your argument that it is, because I'm at a loss.

Simple example.
If you roll a ball across the green its only a penalty if you were doing so to test the surface of the green.
Whether or not the penalty applies solely depends on whether or not you intended to test the surface.
I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

danthefan

I had an awkward stance in a bunker the other day and clipped the sand on my backswing, I didn't mean to do it but it happened, and it costs a shot.

I'd imagine on a green they let intent come into it because it's very easy to drop a golf ball, it happens, and technically dropping your golf ball on the green could be a penalty if intent didn't come into it. On the other hand it is very very easy to put your bag in a place where it can't get hit by a golf ball, i.e. behind you. I think the rules are spot on as they are.

DonkeyPokerTour

danthefan wrote: »

On the other hand it is very very easy to put your bag in a place where it can't get hit by a golf ball, i.e. behind you.

Guys if you want to put your bag in a place where it cant possibly get hit then it pritty much has to be not on a golf course. Playing with both good players and bad players I have seen shots go wrong and end up in places one could never possibly expect!.

We were walking down the 2nd and their was a call of "fore" from the third tee box which starts to the left of the 2nd green and continues in the same direction as the 2nd hole. Of course we didn't react as how could that call be aimed at us, then a ball landed between the 3 of us! The guy was driving, it came off low and hit the ladies tee marker and came careering back straight at us! The guy who hit that tee shot was off of 8 so not exactly a hacker!

Another time A guy was playing a flop shot and managed to hit the ball backwards ala phil mickelson here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYFbD1rNv0 he was off of 12.

Lastly a guy off 5 managed to double hit the ball from a green side bunker maybe 5 yards from the green and leave himself a 50yard shot to the green. He had the face wide open, the ball popped up and on his follow threw he cought the ball pritty much full force sending it backward!

In all 3 cases the ball ended up going backwards and could have hit their own bag! I dont think any of them had any intention of playing the ball backwards they just got unlucky and hit it backwards! I've also seen numerous examples of higher handicap golfers hitting balls and them going no where near where they were expected to go!

So i agree with the theory of intent to hit your own bag,

Conor J

not being allowed to move any stones/twigs etc from a bunker is a bit of a balls, well especially the stones part.. a good bunker should not have any stones in it, so when i find them i do feel let down by the course.. but i (or you) am the one penalised.

heavyballs

Conor J wrote: »

not being allowed to move any stones/twigs etc from a bunker is a bit of a balls, well especially the stones part.. a good bunker should not have any stones in it, so when i find them i do feel let down by the course.. but i (or you) am the one penalised.

i hear ya but i don't agree,my reason?,some of the so called 'sand' is very stoney and if you can remove stones you could defo bend the rules as it's mainly stones and no proper sand
in sayin that they're defined as loose inpediments in most courses i play

ShriekingSheet

GreeBo wrote: »

Simple example.
If you roll a ball across the green its only a penalty if you were doing so to test the surface of the green.
Whether or not the penalty applies solely depends on whether or not you intended to test the surface.
I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

Man, that rule is one scentence long. "...a player must not test the surface of any putting green by rolling a ball...". It makes no reference to intent. Are you trying to nit-pick and claim someone dropping a ball and not being penalised backs up what you're saying?

Granted, in Rory's case at the Masters there was a question of intent asked, but this was a freak scenario. Your point that intent is a central part of the rules, so why doesn't it apply to the equipment one is just not the case.

What are you trying to say about hitting an opponent's ball on the green?