Stupid Golf Rules?

ShivasIrons

It's a common thing to hear that the rules of golf don't make that much sense and there's a lot of stupid rules.

Which rules do you think should be changed and why should they be changed?

DuckSlice

No free drop if your ball is in a divot mark. But I hear they are bringing that in.


Not allowed use a phone for GPS is ridiculous. Wind speed slope etc would make no difference to amateur golfers.

ForeRight

No drop unless there's a local rule for a plugged ball is nonsense and has cost me in the past.

Gin77

I think Dyson was hard done by rule 16-1
touching the line of putt. He did it without thinking.
Why can't you tap down a spike mark between the hole and the ball?

16-1c says if was a ball mark you could fix it.

I would like to know what advantage does 16-1 protect against?

Glencarraig

Having to drop outside a flooded bunker for a penalty shot must be the most stupid rule ever.

ShivasIrons

etxp wrote: »

No free drop if your ball is in a divot mark. But I hear they are bringing that in.


Not allowed use a phone for GPS is ridiculous. Wind speed slope etc would make no difference to amateur golfers.

Isn't ending in a divot just a rub of the green, part of the challenge is to deal with and adapt to 'unfair' situations? I would be exceptionally surprised if a divot is ever declared GUR.

SnowDrifts

ForeRight wrote: »

No drop unless there's a local rule for a plugged ball is nonsense and has cost me in the past.

This is the one that first springs to my mind. Particularly in this country, you should get relief from a plugged ball through the green not just closely mown areas.

What makes it more annoying is that the Pros get relief through the green courtesy of tour card local rules but us amateurs are expected to hack out.

SnowDrifts

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Isn't ending in a divot just a rub of the green, part of the challenge is to deal with and adapt to 'unfair' situations? I would be exceptionally surprised if a divot is ever declared GUR.

Well you could say the same with ending up in a rabbit scratching. You get relief though because it would be unfair to expect a player to play out of it.

I just think it's incredibly unfair and unjust to expect a player after hitting a perfect drive straight down the center to have to hack out of a deep divot.

ShivasIrons

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Well you could say the same with ending up in a rabbit scratching. You get relief though because it would be unfair to expect a player to play out of it.

I just think it's incredibly unfair and unjust to expect a player after hitting a perfect drive straight down the center to have to hack out of a deep divot.

How often does it happen? Can only remember it once this year happening to me, and have played quite a bit.

It's not the same as a borrowing animal hole, which can be quite deep and impossible to hit, can a divot be too deep to play from?

SnowDrifts

ShivasIrons wrote: »

How often does it happen? Can only remember it once this year happening to me, and have played quite a bit.

It's not the same as a borrowing animal hole, which can be quite deep and impossible to hit, can a divot be too deep to play from?

It's frequency has nothing to do with it's unfairness. Also.. the rabbit scratching relief was just used as an example of how free relief can be obtained in certain unfair circumstances.

willabur

It has happened to me quite a bit - really annoying when the ball is in a divot mark or worse still up against the divot itself

ernieprice

I think that leaves in a bunker should be allowed to be removed. In winter a lot of bunkers on courses with trees accumulate leaves no matter how often they are raked/removed.

Wichita Lineman

I think it's ridiculous that viewers can phone in rule breaches and they are actually acted on. Imagine if you could do that for rugby or football!

Russman

SnowDrifts wrote: »

It's frequency has nothing to do with it's unfairness. Also.. the rabbit scratching relief was just used as an example of how free relief can be obtained in certain unfair circumstances.

Wasn't it Nicklaus who said something along the lines of "nobody said golf was meant to be fair" ?

I can't imagine relief from divots ever coming in, it'd be too hard to police what's a divot or not a divot. Anytime a pro got a bad lie he'd be claiming its an old divot and amateurs would soon follow that example. Man up and hit the shot.

For Paws

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that viewers can phone in rule breaches and they are actually acted on. Imagine if you could do that for rugby or football!

In fairness Andy, the phoned-in rule breaches are not acted on.
Evidence, including the opinions of TV viewers and on-course spectators are considered by a Rules Official. If the Rules Official forms an opinion from his viewing of the incident cited that a breach of the Rules may have taken place, and has not been noted by the player concerned, then that breach is 'acted on'.

This applies only where the TV recording of the incident is available to the Rules officials. In all other respects, the phoned-in complaint has all the status of a shout from the crowd towards the referee at a rugby game.

I take your point that phone calls from Life Members of the Toon Army or the Chelsea Headhunters don't receive the same polite attention that messages from golf fans do.

I believe that there is an incident on record where a football fan rang the Police to complain about a tackle on one of 'his' team which he considered violent.

ShivasIrons

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that viewers can phone in rule breaches and they are actually acted on. Imagine if you could do that for rugby or football!

Imagine if all available evidence couldn't be used to give a rules decision, a blatant intentional breach could be televised and no action could be taken, think that would be far worse.

kiers47

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Imagine if all available evidence couldn't be used to give a rules decision, a blatant intentional breach could be televised and no action could be taken, think that would be far worse.

One World Cup qualifying incident springs to mind about sports where viewers have and shouldn't have any say.

I think if you can't trust players to stick to the rules themselves without allowing joe public to call the shots then where does the integrity of the sport lie. Take for example the complaint put in that Harrington teed up from ahead of the tee markers, that was insane.

ShivasIrons

kiers47 wrote: »

One World Cup qualifying incident springs to mind about sports where viewers have and shouldn't have any say.

I think if you can't trust players to stick to the rules themselves without allowing joe public to call the shots then where does the integrity of the sport lie. Take for example the complaint put in that Harrington teed up from ahead of the tee markers, that was insane.

An instant decision isn't required in golf, unlike most sports, isn't better to make a correct call rather than a quick one?

I wouldn't trust the players to stick to the rules all the time, there are examples of cheating on tour.

kiers47

ShivasIrons wrote: »

An instant decision isn't required in golf, unlike most sports, isn't better to make a correct call rather than a quick one?

I wouldn't trust the players to stick to the rules all the time, there are examples of cheating on tour.

Oh there are probably questionable incidents happening in every tournament. Problem is there are simply not the same amount of air time between all players in an event. How fair is it that tiger/Rory and others would have millions of "rules officials keeping an eye on every shot and the lesser known players your Kevin chappells, Harris english's will have less than 5 on most shots.

ShivasIrons

kiers47 wrote: »

Oh there are probably questionable incidents happening in every tournament. Problem is there are simply not the same amount of air time between all players in an event. How fair is it that tiger/Rory and others would have millions of "rules officials keeping an eye on every shot and the lesser known players your Kevin chappells, Harris english's will have less than 5 on most shots.

Golf isn't fair and can never be.

Wombatman

ShivasIrons wrote: »

An instant decision isn't required in golf, unlike most sports, isn't better to make a correct call rather than a quick one?

I wouldn't trust the players to stick to the rules all the time, there are examples of cheating on tour.

What about this one from the weekend?

Aphibarnrat ruling at No. 13 in Round 3 of CIMB Classic
http://www.pgatour.com/video.html/2013/10/26/aphibarnrat-ruling-at-no--13-in-round-3-of-cimb-classic

golf_caddy

Should definitely be relief from;

1. plugged lies in rough
2. leaves in bunkers
3. lying in old/un-raked footprints in bunkers

to name 3 which spring to mind.

GreeBo

no penalty for hitting yourself...you are already screwed in this scenario...no need to add to it imo

newport2

kiers47 wrote: »

Oh there are probably questionable incidents happening in every tournament. Problem is there are simply not the same amount of air time between all players in an event. How fair is it that tiger/Rory and others would have millions of "rules officials keeping an eye on every shot and the lesser known players your Kevin chappells, Harris english's will have less than 5 on most shots.

Absolutely fair. Once you abide by the rules, you've nothing to worry about. Rules officials at their disposal if they've any doubts.


On stupid rules in golf, I think not repairing spike marks one is up there. That said, it's a rule and I find it hard to believe Dyson was not aware of it.

cremeegg

I started playing golf there recently. playing in a 3ball comp one sunday afternoon with a few other randomers. first tee i hit my ball right in the middle of green walked up and marked my ball on the first green. other two chipped on. My ball maker was clearly in his way of one of the bulls. I says "Dan will i move my marker its in your way"...He goes that's a penalty.. your not allowed to say that ...only if i ask.

No talk for next 17 holes. i was not happy with my penalty shot. taught i was penalized for being courteous! FFS

kiers47

newport2 wrote: »

Absolutely fair. Once you abide by the rules, you've nothing to worry about. Rules officials at their disposal if they've any doubts.


On stupid rules in golf, I think not repairing spike marks one is up there. That said, it's a rule and I find it hard to believe Dyson was not aware of it.

I'm talking about situations where the player is completely unaware they did anything wrong and someone sitting at home on there ass spots a ball moving half a dimple.

GreeBo

cremeegg wrote: »

I started playing golf there recently. playing in a 3ball comp one sunday afternoon with a few other randomers. first tee i hit my ball right in the middle of green walked up and marked my ball on the first green. other two chipped on. My ball maker was clearly in his way of one of the bulls. I says "Dan will i move my marker its in your way"...He goes that's a penalty.. your not allowed to say that ...only if i ask.

No talk for next 17 holes. i was not happy with my penalty shot. taught i was penalized for being courteous! FFS

no penalty...he is confusing the rule prohibiting players from conspiring to assist each other. if you are all on the green then no assistance is possible.

newport2

kiers47 wrote: »

I'm talking about situations where the player is completely unaware they did anything wrong and someone sitting at home on there ass spots a ball moving half a dimple.

OK, fair enough.

Still, the more eyes on you as you play, then the more money you're earning. If it's something you're genuinely unaware of then it's bad luck, but that's golf. They've differentiated between being aware and unaware now though after Harringtons ball moving a dimple? So worst is a two shot penalty, unless you do something intentionally like Dyson did.

Mizuno Man

Think what has to be remembered is that many of the rules that seem unfair or too restrictive have to try to avoid the ambiguity that comes with what might appear to be more equitable rules.

For example, if you allow relief from divots on the fairway, then what constitutes a divot? What would naturally occur is that any mark on the fairway that appears to possibly have been made by a club could fall under that rule. Suddenly, the possibility of abuse comes into play. A guy or gal could find themselves on the bottom of an upslope in the fairway. They find a scrape mark under the ball that was probably made by another player and suddenly have the option of a club length drop away from it under the rules and get back on the flat fairway with an easier shot.

It's why you can only repair pitch marks on the green. Because being allowed to repair spikemarks too would see a everyone claiming every imperfection was caused by a shoe and then busily gardening their entire line of putt to get it nice and smooth.

Exactly this kind of scenario occurs already with people who (erroneously) believe that they are entitled to relief from tyre marks. Suddenly anything that remotely resembles a tyre mark becomes fair game and it serves as a handy way to get free relief from a lie that you don't like the look of in the rough or whatever even though the tyre mark was going to cause no trouble whatsoever.

So divot relief will almost certainly never happen.

Plus, figuring out how to play from a divot is part of the skill of the game. The same way that playing from an unueven lie, or from the rough, or from a bunker, or against the fringe and so on, form part of the skills required to get a ball around a course.

It's just as fair to hit your ball down the fairway and find a divot as it is to knock it in the rough alongside your playing partner only to find that his ball is sitting up perfectly and yours is so buried that you can only hope to hack it out a few yards. That's the way it works. Or knocking it into the same bunker as another guy and his ball is sitting lovely and yours caught the rake and is stuck under the lip. Or finding the green but finding a hole from a worm seeking bird on your line. You though it was going to be fine but it's not. Figure out how to play the next shot and move along!!

I totally agree that relief from plugged lies through the green should be widespread, but it's the clubs that decide whether that should apply locally, so members need to harrass their committees for that one.

Also, relief from flooded bunkers does exists in the form of declaring them GUR. If you can't get relief from a flooded bunker then it isn't the rules at fault really. It's your club being too lazy to inspect the course and declare them out of play....

whizbang

Aphibarnrat ruling at No. 13 in Round 3 of CIMB Classic

I can see this type of thing snowballing in the near future. Once players realise how much TV time they are getting...

Can we bring in a 'Just get the fcuk on with it' rule

SnowDrifts

Wombatman wrote: »

What about this one from the weekend?

Aphibarnrat ruling at No. 13 in Round 3 of CIMB Classic
http://www.pgatour.com/video.html/2013/10/26/aphibarnrat-ruling-at-no--13-in-round-3-of-cimb-classic

Think the commentators have it all wrong here suggesting whether he grounded it or not is the key.

The exception to rule 18-2b was introduced in January 2012 and provides that even after grounding, there may be no penalty if it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move.

So merely addressing is not the key.

Wombatman

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Think the commentators have it all wrong here suggesting whether he grounded it or not is the key.

The exception to rule 18-2b was introduced in January 2012 and provides that even after grounding, there may be no penalty if it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move.

So merely addressing is not the key.

The exception is irrelevant in this case as it is not known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move.

The commentators and rules official only wish to determine if he addressed the ball, which requires grounding the club.

SnowDrifts

Wombatman wrote: »

The exception is irrelevant in this case as it is not known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move.

The commentators and rules official only wish to determine if he addressed the ball, which requires grounding the club.

Well if the ball moved by itself... I'm sure he would be virtually certain that he did not cause the ball to move.

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Well if the ball moved by itself... I'm sure he would be virtually certain that he did not cause the ball to move.

if you ground the club near the ball how can you be virtually certain that it wasnt this action that caused it to move?

SnowDrifts

GreeBo wrote: »

if you ground the club near the ball how can you be virtually certain that it wasnt this action that caused it to move?

A gust of wind? What caused the ball to move in the first place. The exception is there to allow for movement after address so obviously it does happen. Just certainty is the issue.

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

A gust of wind? What caused the ball to move in the first place. The exception is there to allow for movement after address so obviously it does happen. Just certainty is the issue.

you can easily be certain that you made the ball move, is not as easy to be certain you didn't. the wind could gust add the ball moves and you address it...how do you decide which caused it to move?
I think there are very limited scenarios, the lie in question wouldn't be one for me, he grounded his club near the ball and it moved...

SnowDrifts

Well as I said, the exception was placed in the rules for a reason. The primary reason admittedly being on the putting green where I am sure you have seen balls move after address which was not caused by the said address.

If you couldn't be virtually certain that a ball moved after address merely because of the act of addressing, then there would be no need for the exception to the rule.

Gin77

GreeBo wrote: »

you can easily be certain that you made the ball move, is not as easy to be certain you didn't. the wind could gust add the ball moves and you address it...how do you decide which caused it to move?
I think there are very limited scenarios, the lie in question wouldn't be one for me, he grounded his club near the ball and it moved...

What difference does it make seriously?
Even if the ball moved an inch from the fairway or on a green. Its no real advantage in any status pro or am.
Just replace it or leave it and just hit the fookin thing.
They go on about slow play how often do you see on tour guys waiting on a rules official?
Nobody would ever call it if it wasn't for couch potatoes with nothing better to do.

DuckSlice

golf_caddy wrote: »

Should definitely be relief from;

1. plugged lies in rough
2. leaves in bunkers
3. lying in old/un-raked footprints in bunkers

to name 3 which spring to mind.

You get relief if your ball is plugged I thought, as long as it is "closely mown" and "through the green". Rough is closely mown unless it is the rough that is never mown. That's what I take from it anyway.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

You get relief if your ball is plugged I thought, as long as it is "closely mown" and "through the green". Rough is closely mown unless it is the rough that is never mown. That's what I take from it anyway.

closely mown is defined in the rules as fairway height or less.

DuckSlice

Yea I just looked it up there. Was looking at the rules app before, it gives a definition of through the green but not closely mown so presumed it was everything that was mown. You would do well to get a ball plugged on my home course quite solid, although winter is here so it will be softening up a bit now.

Anyway you learn something new everyday.

slave1

etxp wrote: »

You get relief if your ball is plugged I thought, as long as it is "closely mown" and "through the green". Rough is closely mown unless it is the rough that is never mown. That's what I take from it anyway.

Only get relief from plugged ball through local rule, not permanent rule although I've seen some clubs with it on the card...

Goldenjohn

golf_caddy wrote: »

Should definitely be relief from;

1. plugged lies in rough
2. leaves in bunkers
3. lying in old/un-raked footprints in bunkers

to name 3 which spring to mind.

Why should you get relief, your after hitting it into a hazard?

For Paws

Goldenjohn wrote: »

Why should you get relief, your after hitting it into a hazard?

Did you ever, when passing a bunker with leaves lying in it, or foot / ball marks unraked, think 'I'll just take 30 seconds to remove those leaves or rake those marks' ?

As long as your ball (or your partner's) is not lying or touching in that particular hazard you are free to do so.

If someone playing in front of you did this, you would not be impeded by leaves or marks.

Who was it that first said 'What goes around comes around' ?

GreeBo

For Paws wrote: »

Did you ever, when passing a bunker with leaves lying in it, or foot / ball marks unraked, think 'I'll just take 30 seconds to remove those leaves or rake those marks' ?

As long as your ball (or your partner's) is not lying or touching in that particular hazard you are free to do so.

If someone playing in front of you did this, you would not be impeded by leaves or marks.

Who was it that first said 'What goes around comes around' ?

I always fix rakes that have been left across the front of a bunker...no one deserves that impossible lie.

DuckSlice

I never know whether to leave the rake in the bunker or out of it! 😱.

Goldenjohn

For Paws wrote: »

Did you ever, when passing a bunker with leaves lying in it, or foot / ball marks unraked, think 'I'll just take 30 seconds to remove those leaves or rake those marks' ?

As long as your ball (or your partner's) is not lying or touching in that particular hazard you are free to do so.

If someone playing in front of you did this, you would not be impeded by leaves or marks.

Who was it that first said 'What goes around comes around' ?

I'll often rake a bunker with footprints if it won't hold up play unnecessarily. If i'm in one i'll rake mine and any others in there once im finished my shot (or 2/3!!!)

PARlance

etxp wrote: »

I never know whether to leave the rake in the bunker or out of it! 😱.

The R&A advise that you leave it outside the bunker in a place that will cause the least disturbance possible. Ie the far side of a fairway bunker.