Brian Davis

[Kilroy]

If I'm Davis, according to your logic Dan, because there is a chance I might brush a 3mm think twig I should take a drop??? No way!!!

Actually if I were him, I'd have taken the drop and played the 20' chip, but he decided to risk it. He rolled the dice and lost, but it was his call all the way.

[Big Johnny69]

Not so much puzzling as just odd on the omission. Like I said, you can't push, drag or scoop the ball, but the only consider a forward movement to hit the ball as a stroke. It's just odd that they don't consider the motion to prepare your club for the forward movement to the ball as part of the "stroke". The people that wrote the rules surely played the game. They must realize players don't go walking around with clubs up in the air ready to strike the ball....just odd, not puzzling.

[Kilroy]

Well I seem to eventually "get" the reasons for most things with regards to the rules, but I too find myself wondering about the logic of that distinction. It is not spelled out anywhere that I could find quickly. Perhaps one of the others can shed some light on it.

Still, it is what it is and they must rule accordingly.

[Big Johnny69]

Actually if I were him, I'd have taken the drop and played the 20' chip, but he decided to risk it. He rolled the dice and lost, but it was his call all the way.

You have guaranteed 2nd place money, but a chane to grab a 2 year exception, and you're telling me you don't take that chance (without already knowing the outcome)??

[LobWedge]

Not so much puzzling as just odd on the omission. Like I said, you can't push, drag or scoop the ball, but the only consider a forward movement to hit the ball as a stroke. It's just odd that they don't consider the motion to prepare your club for the forward movement to the ball as part of the "stroke". The people that wrote the rules surely played the game. They must realize players don't go walking around with clubs up in the air ready to strike the ball....just odd, not puzzling.

Regardless of where you start from, it's the forward motion of the club that propels the ball, not the backward motion.

[LobWedge]

You have guaranteed 2nd place money, but a chane to grab a 2 year exception, and you're telling me you don't take that chance (without already knowing the outcome)??

That's your choice. You're not forced to do it.

They don't call them hazards for nothing.

[BC MIST]

I'm with you Jon, but like I mentioned previously, the rules gurus see this debate, like the rules of golf, as black and white. I don't understand it, but everyone gets so defensive and argumentative when you question the rules of golf. Generally, in society, when you question things, in more cases than not it will lead to evolution and improvements. I'm not sure why these people can't admit that there is a "chance" that opening the rules up to discussion and possible changes couldn't make the game better. Every other sport on the planet has evolved over the years, except golf. They are so worried about messing with the tradition of the game they are affraid to even try to evolve the game. Golf seems to be the only sport where, in some cases, appears to be taking steps backwards.

For instance, in regards to this ruling. How come the player's intent can't be brought into the equation of rendering a decision???

I'll use Davis' situation as an example:

Instead of a twig that was in the path of his backswing, lets say it was a stone. Now if he took he backswing and purposedly pushed the stone back during his backswing (and it's obvious to everyone watching), you assess the penalty. But if it's a thin twig that went unoticed during address and was struck on the backswing, which in no way improved the intended path of play or the outcome, how come the penalty cannot be waived?

We that choose to question these things are not asking to have heaven and earth moved and have the entire rules revamped, just be a little open minded about the possibilty that there could be other ways at looking at things. The thing that is frustrating to me is that some can't even be open to that possibility.

(1) I would wager that there have been more changes to the rules of golf/decisions in the last three years, than in all major North American sports combined, in the last decade. For proof, just look at the back of the 2008 decisions book and you will find page after page after page of changes.

(2) The reason we argue perhaps is that we foolishly think that we can make you guys understand the big picture, versus the difference between a twig and a rock, or is it a rock and a hard place? This statement, "Golf seems to be the only sport where, in some cases, appears to be taking steps backwards,"shows how out of touch you are in knowing what the ruling bodies have actually done.

(3) Here is an example of what you want: Jon and Geoff are tied for the 10th spot for the Copperdale Intersectional team and the Club Captain indicates that the two must playoff. Before the playoff, Geoff tells the CC that Jon practiced putted on the 18th green before the final round. The CC says, "But he only took a couple of putts so he hasn't gained much of an advantage and besides, he plays the 18th every day." Geoff loses the playoff. How do you feel now Geoff? The rules say you win, but your Club Captain, whom you want to be allowed to interpret the rules, caused you to lose. Obviously, you would say that this is perfectly FAIR. Right? My guess is that you would be some upset. It's a good thing that Copperdale does not have a captain like this.

You stated.And I still don't understand why the don't consider the backswing as part of a stroke. They don't want you to push or drag the ball along with your club, so unless you have a backswing, how do you make a stroke???Again, you judge based on a lack of knowledge. (1) A golfer does not need to make a back swing, in order to make a downswing (2) you don't know what a "push" is in regard to the rules, and (3) it is permissible to "drag" the ball along the ground in making a stroke, and I have the emails from the RCGA to prove it and a YouTube reference to show it.

Allowing interpretations will ruin the greatest game in the world.

[Big Johnny69]

(1) I would wager that there have been more changes to the rules of golf/decisions in the last three years, than in all major North American sports combined, in the last decade. For proof, just look at the back of the 2008 decisions book and you will find page after page after page of changes.

(2) The reason we argue perhaps is that we foolishly think that we can make you guys understand the big picture, versus the difference between a twig and a rock, or is it a rock and a hard place? This statement, "Golf seems to be the only sport where, in some cases, appears to be taking steps backwards,"shows how out of touch you are in knowing what the ruling bodies have actually done.

(3) Here is an example of what you want: Jon and Geoff are tied for the 10th spot for the Copperdale Intersectional team and the Club Captain indicates that the two must playoff. Before the playoff, Geoff tells the CC that Jon practiced putted on the 18th green before the final round. The CC says, "But he only took a couple of putts so he hasn't gained much of an advantage and besides, he plays the 18th every day." Geoff loses the playoff. How do you feel now Geoff? The rules say you win, but your Club Captain, whom you want to be allowed to interpret the rules, caused you to lose. Obviously, you would say that this is perfectly FAIR. Right? My guess is that you would be some upset. It's a good thing that Copperdale does not have a captain like this.

You stated.And I still don't understand why the don't consider the backswing as part of a stroke. They don't want you to push or drag the ball along with your club, so unless you have a backswing, how do you make a stroke???Again, you judge based on a lack of knowledge. (1) A golfer does not need to make a back swing, in order to make a downswing (2) you don't know what a "push" is in regard to the rules, and (3) it is permissible to "drag" the ball along the ground in making a stroke, and I have the emails from the RCGA to prove it and a YouTube reference to show it.

Allowing interpretations will ruin the greatest game in the world.

I'm on my BB, so unfortunately I can't reply to this now, but I will.

Don't get me wrong Lyle, I appreciate your, Gerry's, Rich's and Dan's extensive you guys have put in to your levels of rules officiating. It helps to have knowledgeable people around to discuss the rules. My comments in regards to golf going backwards isn't in regards to equipment and playing conditions, it's specific to the rules.

Have you ever stopped to think why the book of decisions has to be updated and is so big? What if interpretation of the rules had been allowed long ago? I'm sure many of these incident specific rulings would not have been needed. Just a thought. As for your other comments, I'll reply to them a little later.

This is a good discusion.

[justsomeguy]

Not so much puzzling as just odd on the omission. Like I said, you can't push, drag or scoop the ball, but the only consider a forward movement to hit the ball as a stroke. It's just odd that they don't consider the motion to prepare your club for the forward movement to the ball as part of the "stroke". The people that wrote the rules surely played the game. They must realize players don't go walking around with clubs up in the air ready to strike the ball....just odd, not puzzling.

Its actually not that odd at all. Making a "stroke" counts as 1 on the scorecard, while making a backswing does not.

If the backswing was part of the "stroke", then what do you do if somewhat checks their backswing? Or simply practices the first 2 feet of their takeaway (like Mike Weir) while in the address position? Or presets the club halfway back (like another poster in this thread)? At some point you have to decide when the "stroke" counts on the scorecard and when it doesn't, and the rulemakers decided it made more sense to have it start at the forward movement of the club rather than the backward motion.

[BC MIST]

Have you ever stopped to think why the book of decisions has to be updated and is so big? What if interpretation of the rules had been allowed long ago? I'm sure many of these incident specific rulings would not have been needed. Just a thought. As for your other comments, I'll reply to them a little later.

If interpretations were permitted then the environmentalist would be complaining about the deforestation necessary to complete the volumes of decisions.

Golf is played over an area of hundreds of acres of vastly different terrain and so the basic rules must be clarified to suit those conditions. We do encounter wasps nests, dogs, well foxes, stealing golf balls, geese crapping on putting greens, heavy downpours washing out parts of the course, skunks digging up fairways, balls disappearing into drainage pipes or landing in someone's golf bag, temper mental golfers whapping their wedges into the sand after missing a shot and cart girls running out of beer, and the rules/decisions must deal with those situations so that IF encountered again, there is no question (INTERPRETATION) about what should be done.

In my 50 years of competitive golf, I have seen the rules have changed hugely and for the better, IMO. Yes, there are more decisions/rules changes because in time, more unique things have happened on the increasing number of courses around the world, played by an ever increasing number of golfers.

Hockey is the antithesis of golf. The refs decide what gets called and a call or non call often decides the results of the game, particularly in the playoffs. The refs are allowed, in effect, to interpret the rules. To allow this in golf, where players would decide what rules they play by or don't play by, the game would be completely ruined.

Admittedly, there are a couple of gray areas in the rules of golf, (he said/she said) where a judgment called must be made by an official, but they are very exceptional.

Now tell me, would you be OK if you missed the Intersectional team for the interpretation I outlined above?

[goochy]

I think golf is very very special...and one of the main reasons for that IMO is the rules and the way it is officiated.

As some of you know I am relatively new to golf, my background was at a high level in Rugby in England. I love Rugby and everything about it but I can tell you 100% we were coached to "cheat". In the lead up to a league game we would have meetings on Wednesday's and one of the things always on the agenda was "which ref has been assigned to our game Saturday, what are his typical interpretations of the laws, and what can we reasonably expect to get away with"
At training on Thursday and Friday many things we did had this in mind.

Every ref was different, each had their own style, their own favourite calls, their own things that really got them P***ed off but yet the Laws were, in theory, exactly the same every week.

Golf is different. It is special (in a good way). Rules are not up for interpretation, they just "are"...there is no arbiter of justice. I honestly believe that if we opened this can of worms about "was there any real advantage" etc or "intent" we would lose something very very good about the game we love.

I know some rules seem odd (like Brian Davis' example) or being punished because your great tee shot lands in a divot someone else didn't replace and you suffer but they are FAIR. I think people forget about this word and what it really means. the rules of golf are Fair because they are the same for everyone and they are applied equally to everyone...thats what fair is.

Unlike Rugby, I've never felt robbed by a referee in Golf and hopefully I never will. Sorry for the rant

[sensfan63]

I think golf is very very special...and one of the main reasons for that IMO is the rules and the way it is officiated.

As some of you know I am relatively new to golf, my background was at a high level in Rugby in England. I love Rugby and everything about it but I can tell you 100% we were coached to "cheat". In the lead up to a league game we would have meetings on Wednesday's and one of the things always on the agenda was "which ref has been assigned to our game Saturday, what are his typical interpretations of the laws, and what can we reasonably expect to get away with"
At training on Thursday and Friday many things we did had this in mind.

Every ref was different, each had their own style, their own favourite calls, their own things that really got them P***ed off but yet the Laws were, in theory, exactly the same every week.

Golf is different. It is special (in a good way). Rules are not up for interpretation, they just "are"...there is no arbiter of justice. I honestly believe that if we opened this can of worms about "was there any real advantage" etc or "intent" we would lose something very very good about the game we love.

I know some rules seem odd (like Brian Davis' example) or being punished because your great tee shot lands in a divot someone else didn't replace and you suffer but they are FAIR. I think people forget about this word and what it really means. the rules of golf are Fair because they are the same for everyone and they are applied equally to everyone...thats what fair is.

Unlike Rugby, I've never felt robbed by a referee in Golf and hopefully I never will. Sorry for the rant

Dude, that's not a rant. That's a great response to those who see value in "interpretation."

[LobWedge]

Aha! I knew I'd seen this somewhere before...

13-4/32 Club Touches Partially Embedded Pine Needle on Backswing in Bunker

Q. A player whose ball lies in a bunker touches a partially embedded pine needle with his club on his backswing. What is the ruling?

A. The player is in breach of Rule 13-4c. A partially embedded pine needle is not solidly embedded and is not considered to be fixed; therefore, it is a loose impediment (see Definition of "Loose Impediments").

[jonf]

I know some rules seem odd (like Brian Davis' example) or being punished because your great tee shot lands in a divot someone else didn't replace and you suffer but they are FAIR. I think people forget about this word and what it really means. the rules of golf are Fair because they are the same for everyone and they are applied equally to everyone...thats what fair is.

You make some good points, but this is where I disagree with you. To me, just because you are treated the same as others does not mean you are being treated fairly. The divot example is a shining example. Yes, everybody who lands in a divot in the fairway is treated the same, but everyone who lands their ball smack dab in the middle of the fairway is not - if one lands in the divot, they are screwed, whereas their FC whose ball rolled out of the divot, is not. That is not fair.

[AAA]

Who said life was fair?

Golf does not set out to be fair. Your drive hits a tree and bounces onto the fairway. Your opponent's hits the same tree and bounces OoB. Fair?

The word used in the RoG is equity. The same situation treated in the same way. Given the nature of the game and the environment it is played in, that's the best that can be done.

[par72]

Not to mention they changed the rules because of that incidence.

No. You cannot move a lose impedament in a hazard. Tiger's rock was a "lose" impedament not in a hazard.

[AAA]

Not to mention they changed the rules because of that incidence.

Another golfing myth. The rule and decision was in existence over 40 years before the TW incident.

http://www.usga.org/news/2009/januar...-Phoenix-Open/

[par72]

I appreciate you clearly know your rules of the game.....But I never stated the rule was changed at that moment to allow tiger to play his shot. The rule was changed after which states that on the pgatour a player must move a "loose impedement" himself!

EDIT: have heard this repeated anecdotally numerous times on television and at the TPC of scottsdale..I cannot find a link to it's truth so i am now doubting it myself.

[par72]

I was wrong above....Although this rule definitely directly relates to the Tiger incidence:

23-1/2 Large Stone Removable Only with Much Effort
Q. A player's ball lies in the rough directly behind a loose stone the size of a watermelon. The stone can be removed only with much effort. Is it a loose impediment which may be removed?
A. Yes. Stones of any size (not solidly embedded) are loose impediments and may be removed, provided removal does not unduly delay play
(Rule 6-7).

[AAA]

Quote from
David Rickman (USGA Director of Rules): The relevant Decisions – 23-1/2 and 23-1/3 – were both in the Decisions book before the Tiger incident,

[par72]

And if I was arguing that the incorrect rulin was made your point may be relevant. *sigh*

[AAA]

I thought you said "Not to mention they changed the rules because of that incidence."
Sorry if I misunderstood you.