Do you think this is fair?

[jonf]

The unfortunate reality is that the majority of golfers do not know how to take proper relief from an immovable obstruction RIGHT NOW - and you want to make this rule even MORE complicated???

What if the obstruction is in the fairway but my NPR is in the rough?
What if the obstruction is in the rough but there is no point of relief in the rough?
What if I drop in the rough and the ball rolls to the fairway?
What if I drop in the fairway and the ball rolls to the rough?
What if my ball is on a cart path running between rough and fairway?
etc., etc., etc.

I tell you one thing...I'm definitely never entering into competitive golf. I don't think I have three years to spend to learn the rules. (actually, I probably do, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I don't ) The sheer number of rules, exceptions decisions etc etc etc in golf is absolutely mind boggling. I really don't think making another exception is really going to make things that much more complicated in the long run. If you've got a mule carrying around 500 pounds of gear, is it going to make that much of a difference if you throw on another pound or two? (ignoring, of course, the slim possibility that it could be the straw that breaks said mule's back). The rules are already so inpenetrable to most that I don't think it makes much of a difference.

[jeffc]

Fundonny I sure hope you don't play any competitive golf or play anyone for any coin. Just keep playing flog for the fun that you seem to be having.

Gerry, why would you say that? Donny indicated above that he plays by the rules. Again you are missing the point. He plays by them he just doesn't always agree with every one of them.

[BC MIST]

But, when I am in GUR or casual water in the rough, I would never dream of dropping it in the fairway, even if the rules allowed me to do so. It would never have even crossed my mind that that would be legal, because it doesn't make sense. I think that's the case with every golfer I know who is out trying to put up a legitimate score.

The suggestion that the scores that those of us achieve when playing within the rules are not legitimate, is the weakest of your many weak arguments.

While certainly not in their league, over 48 years of playing competitive golf and having played with scores of excellent players from Canadian champions to most of the best that this area has seen, there is not one who would not drop a ball from "rough" to "fairway," when the circumstances were such that this would happen. Not one. The procedures we follow are governed by the rules, not by opinion.

The point that in golf, there is an ebb and flow of good and bad breaks, seems not to be understood, and while most rules punish us because of poor play, and rightfully so, there are a few occasions when the rules do help.

Scerario: Stonebridge #5 West. You have a 2' putt for a par on this severely sloped green. You miss the putt and it rolls off the green, 40 yards down the "fairway" into a drainage grate. You go pick up your ball, walk back to the green, place it 2' from the hole and tap in. Is this fair? I bet I can guess what your answer is.

[justsomeguy]

I really don't think it's as complicated as everyone's trying to make it sound. If your ball comes to rest on an immovable obstruction, or GUR or Casual water, you are allowed to take relief. However, if that obstacle lies within the boundaries of the rough, the ball should not be moved to the fairway, which would constitute an undue advantage.

1) Your ball comes to rest on a cart path with fairway on one side and rough on the other. Where do you drop? Does it matter that your NPR would have your dropping in the rough? or in the fairway? Does it matter that if there is an OB fence on the "rough" side of the cart path making it impossible to drop there? Does it matter that the ball rolled onto the cart path from the fairway side? or from the "rough" side?

2) Your ball comes to rest in a large area of casual water that lies on the right covering both the right side of the fairway and the right rough. Where do you drop? What if the casual water is so large that you can't actually find your ball?

3) Your ball come to rest on a cart path that crosses the fairway. On each side is a 6" strip of rough because the greenskeepers cannot cut that close to a gravel cart path. Do you drop in the fairway or in the rough? Does it matter that it is impossible to take FULL relief on the 6" strip of grass. Does it matter if the strip of grass is 6' instead of 6"?

All of these are fairly common scenarios. I have no doubt that rules can be written to cover all of these situations - unfortunately the Rules of Golf would then resemble the Income Tax Act!

[jeffc]

I have no doubt that rules can be written to cover all of these situations - unfortunately the Rules of Golf would then resemble the Income Tax Act!

I would argue they already do.

[justsomeguy]

I tell you one thing...I'm definitely never entering into competitive golf. I don't think I have three years to spend to learn the rules. (actually, I probably do, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I don't ) The sheer number of rules, exceptions decisions etc etc etc in golf is absolutely mind boggling.

IMHO you only have to learn the rules - not the decisions. The decisions are something to refer to in odd and strange situations, and are really intended for rules officials.

IMHO the problem is not understanding the rules themselves - it is that players have to teach themselves. You don't even have a referee around to tell you when you make a mistake. If you take the time to read and learn the Definitions at the front of the rule book, then the rules themselves are fairly straightforward. Most golfers don't bother - they just complain about the stupid rules instead!

[jonf]

The suggestion that the scores that those of us achieve when playing within the rules are not legitimate, is the weakest of your many weak arguments.

While certainly not in their league, over 48 years of playing competitive golf and having played with scores of excellent players from Canadian champions to most of the best that this area has seen, there is not one who would not drop a ball from "rough" to "fairway," when the circumstances were such that this would happen. Not one. The procedures we follow are governed by the rules, not by opinion.

The point that in golf, there is an ebb and flow of good and bad breaks, seems not to be understood, and while most rules punish us because of poor play, and rightfully so, there are a few occasions when the rules do help.

Scerario: Stonebridge #5 West. You have a 2' putt for a par on this severely sloped green. You miss the putt and it rolls off the green, 40 yards down the "fairway" into a drainage grate. You go pick up your ball, walk back to the green, place it 2' from the hole and tap in. Is this fair? I bet I can guess what your answer is.

That's not at all what I meant, but I can see how you got that impression. I was making a distinction between those of us who go out on the weekend with less then ideal rule knowledge, but still do their best to play a legitimate score, as opposed to those who will improve all their lies, take a ball out of the thick rough, or move it around a tree, because they are out to enjoy the game and aren't concerned about the rules. I had no intention of implying that those following the rules are illegitimate golfers.

As for your example....no its not fair. Now I'm curious...is there a rule that allows for that?

[g8r]

the main issue in the discussion is the Rule defenders are confusing what is fair and logical, to what is written and correct to do in that scenario.

You can play by the rules and not agree that they are fair, either in your favour or against.

for those saying "the rules are the rules".....
Are there any recent rule changes that you don't agree with? why were they changed? what was wrong with the old rule that had been used for 250+ years? are there any rules that you would like to see changed or are they currently perfect as written?

[BC MIST]

That's not at all what I meant, but I can see how you got that impression. I was making a distinction between those of us who go out on the weekend with less then ideal rule knowledge, but still do their best to play a legitimate score, as opposed to those who will improve all their lies, take a ball out of the thick rough, or move it around a tree, because they are out to enjoy the game and aren't concerned about the rules. I had no intention of implying that those following the rules are illegitimate golfers.

As for your example....no its not fair. Now I'm curious...is there a rule that allows for that?

Rule 28 - Unplayable Ball - Stroke and Distance option. I see this as a course/game management strategy because of a player knowing the rules. As you see this as being unfair, think of the implications if would you would like to see the removal of the S&D option?

Alexander of Tunis tournament -2008- Royal Ottawa GC- #18. Player hits ball into Lateral Water Hazard left of the green. Drops ball 1.9 club lengths from the margin and it rolls 1.9 club lengths on to a cart path. Drops ball .9 club lengths from NPR from the cart path and it rolls 1.9 club lengths. Total 6.6 club lengths of relief from a lousy position to good lie, from which he almost made par. From the spectators, I can hear the cry of "Unfair!" "Unfair!" But from the players I hear, "What a smart move!" "Why didn't I think of that?"

[jonf]

Rule 28 - Unplayable Ball - Stroke and Distance option. I see this as a course/game management strategy because of a player knowing the rules. As you see this as being unfair, think of the implications if would you would like to see the removal of the S&D option?

Wow. You failed to mention in your example that the player put the ball next to the hole by taking a PENALTY. That is a MUCH different scenario, and quite disingenuous on your part to try to represent it as an equivalent situation to that which we are discussing, where a player is taking FREE relief.

[BC MIST]

the main issue in the discussion is the Rule defenders are confusing (1) what is fair and logical, to what is written and correct to do in that scenario.

(2) Are there any recent rule changes that you don't agree with? why were they changed? what was wrong with the old rule that had been used for 250+ years? are there any rules that you would like to see changed or are they currently perfect as written?

(1) It's obvious that what is "fair and logical" is a matter of opinion

(2) There were rules that were unfair and IMO, there are still some. The ruling bodies have obviously made a significant number of changes to the rules, or clarifications of existing ones, and will continue to do so. However, I would wager that the current issue of a few wanting a ball to be dropped in the rough if the rough is where it came to rest, is NOT going to be one of them. Nor is getting relief from a divot or the removal of the stroke and distance option from Rule 28, etc..

But, there are rules where, through no fault of the player, the player gets penalized. You ask me to attend the flag. You putt. The cart girl drives by and I take a look. Your ball hits the flagstick. Who gets penalized? YOU. 2 strokes. IMO, this is a true example of an unfair rule, not the rare occasion when someone gets to play from the short grass.

[g8r]

seeing as the putting green is one of the 4 areas recognized on the golf course, perhaps stroke and distance under rule 28 should not apply on the green?

just asking, not making a judgement....or are there legitimate times when this rule is needed on the green (where other rules would not apply)?

[BC MIST]

Wow. You failed to mention in your example that the player put the ball next to the hole by taking a PENALTY. That is a MUCH different scenario, and quite disingenuous on your part to try to represent it as an equivalent situation to that which we are discussing, where a player is taking FREE relief.

The principle of discussion is taking an "unfair" advantage of a rule. If the player is 40 yards down the fairway from a sloped green, the odds of his getting up and down in 2 strokes are almost nil. Instead, he would likely take 3 more strokes, perhaps even more.

You say dropping a ball in the fairway when the ball was originally in the rough is taking advantage of a rule and is unfair. By declaring the ball unplayable and playing his next stroke 40 yards closer to the hole, he gets to save a stroke. Using the same principle, would you not call this taking unfair advantage of a rule? Is placing the ball on the putting green, 2' from the hole, instead of having to play it from 40 yards away, not like playing from the fairway instead of the rough? I say both are just the player's good fortune.

[LobWedge]

How does your proposed change make things less complicated? What could be simpler than "drop within one clublength"?

What happens if you're playing a course that has an immovable obstruction that lies in the semi-rough? It's not in the fairway, and it's not in the rough. There are many courses that have a "first cut", and there are just as many that don't. I guess you need to further clarify that then.

What happens if the obstruction is in the rough, but the part of the obstruction that your ball lies in, or on is overhanging the fairway. Do you still have to drop in the rough because the obstruction is attached in the rough, or do you get to drop in the fairway.

Don't forget, you're also dealing with Nearest Point of Relief. That's a whole other can of worms you've opened now...

[jonf]

In your situation he does also run the risk of putting the ball back down the hill again..obviously the initial put wasn't an easy one and there's no guarantee that he'll sink it. That is, however, slightly beside the point. Obviously such a situation represents a bit more of a grey area, but I think there is an important distinction between taking a free drop and a penalty drop. There are many situations in which a player makes a strategic decision to take a penalty which ultimately end with them improving their score on the hole. I am by no mean suggesting that we should eliminate a player's option to improve his position by taking an unplayable. However, there remains an important difference between taking a penalty to improve one's position and improving one's position with no penalty.

[fundonny]

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate you pointing that out to gbower. Don't think I deserved that comment.

[fundonny]

And Jonf, if I EVER need a lawyer in the future, dude you are IT!!!!!!!!

[Indio]

This thread has turned out to be one of my favourites.

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate you pointing that out to gbower. Don't think I deserved that comment.

Oh Donny, what have you done? ....

This is worse than your Michelle Wie saga.

All you said is you find the rule unfair but that you do follow the rules! LMAO

[jonf]

And Jonf, if I EVER need a lawyer in the future, dude you are IT!!!!!!!!

Haha...I'll let you know if I end up going that route. No law school yet though.

[spackler]

I think you can look at the question from two perspectives of fairness. One is not really debatable, that two players hitting to the same spot would get the same relief. The debate on fairness here is whether it's fair to the player who hits the fairway that his competitor, who hits the rough, gets the free drop to the fairway. I don't think that's fair, but it also seems to have more to do with luck than anything, and it's near impossible to legislate luck.

As an example, I played Dragonfly with LMS at the beginning of the season and I bet he hit 5 trees on the back 9. Every single one of those shots bounced back into the fairway. I hit more than a couple trees myself, but none of them came back. We hit similarly poor shots (I hit a lot more of those, don't want to malign LMS's game by comparing it to my own...) that had very different results. It wasn't 'fair' but it was just luck. Ninety nine times out of a 100, if you hit it into the rough, it will stay in the rough, Stenson just got a lucky bounce.

[BC MIST]

I think you can look at the question from two perspectives of fairness. One is not really debatable, that two players hitting to the same spot would get the same relief.

Not always the case. Two players hit their golf balls on to exact middle of a cart path(IO). The nearest point of relief for a left hander is vastly different than the one for a right hander. One may have a clear shot to the green and the other be stymied by some trees. Is this FAIR? According to my honourable debating opponents above, YES, if both balls were dropped in the rough, but I have a sneaky suspicion, NO, as one got a break and the other did not.

[BC MIST]

Ironically, when we played today, one player in of our group had his ball come to rest on a sprinkler head, in the rough, took relief and dropped it on the fringe/fairway from which he was able to putt. We did our best OG imitation and cried "Unfair! Unfair!" but unfortunately, our protestations were ignored. Imagine.

[jonf]

Ironically, when we played today, one player in of our group had his ball come to rest on a sprinkler head, in the rough, took relief and dropped it on the fringe/fairway from which he was able to putt. We did our best OG imitation and cried "Unfair! Unfair!" but unfortunately, our protestations were ignored. Imagine.

What is rough?

[LobWedge]

What is rough?

Exactly!

[BC MIST]

What is rough?

Not quite sure. It was a term that I learned from the Ottawa Golf Forum where a ball that gets unroughed was deemed to be unfair. So then I guess that a ball that gets unfairwayed is a ball that is now unrough? Frankly, because these silly terms are all so very confusing, I just hit the ball from bent to bent to bent and I never get blue.

[fundonny]

I think you mean a ball that got unroughed was deemed illogical.

[Kilroy]

You cannot "deem" a ball illogical. It only becomes illogical when you have been confounded for more than 5 minutes, or you play one that makes sense.

[Foddz]

Fundonny, why not just put red 'lateral hazard' stakes down both sides of the fairway? If you want the 'rough' to be punishing, just declare it a hazard. No worries about getting 'unfair relief' (or any relief, for that matter) from obstructions, impediments, or abnormal ground conditions. You hit it off the fairway, you live with the lie you get, or take your penalty stroke and get to put it back in the fairway where you went in.

Your suggested "sort-of-relief", or "relief-with-a-'but'" if you prefer, adds an awful lot of gray area to an already cumbersome and poorly understood (at least to the average player) set of rules. The goal of the rules is not to "punish" or "aid" a player, the rules should be impartial - it is to give the player a set of guidelines to operate under in any circumstance they may encounter.

[oldmaninblack]

I don't waste energy complaining about fair or unfair rules. I try to know as much about the rules as I can and take whatever advantage I can get from them.

I've played with people who always took relief from the woods as if it was a lateral water hazard. One in particular also claimed to always break 80.

I don't care what rules others play by unless we are in a tournament or playing for money.

[SnakeEye]

It was just as fair as Tiger vs. the boulder on the 13th hole during the 1999 Phoenix Open - that was some loose impediment !!!