Ruling?

[Txxxxxxx]

I stand by my statement 100%. I'm tired of people who constantly whine about how the rules are killing participation in golf. That's total BS. People come on here to ask for clarification, and then whine when they don't get the answer they like. What's the point? There's a lot of stuff in life we don't like, so either do something about it, or get on with it. It's that simple. Golf is a lot like life, you get out of it what you put in to it.

Either you're in denial, or you don't want to admit that is the fact.

It is a key contributor, to the lack of participation in golf, as well as organized golf events where rules are enforced. People are afraid they do not have all the rules down pat, so are hesitant to compete or participate in different events.

Do you honestly think that all of this rule simplifying talk is out of left field? Or have you had a drink of the purple Kool-Aid?

And the fact that avid golfers, have to come on here and ask for a clarification, to a ruling which you say is something that every golfer should be aware of, shows how it's not as straight forward as you claim.

[habsfan]

How about finding a less direct route to your ball before going to retrieve it? That is common sense in action with regard to the rules. The ball is still in play, and the player is on the hook for a ball in play that moves as a direct result of his actions. 26 allows the player to substitute a ball when taking relief.

So to clarify, is ball is in the hazard, he wants to first identify his ball and then assuming he wanted to assess is lie to see if he will play it and in the process slips moves his ball, even though the player was unsure if he was going to play from the hazard or take his penalty and take the ball out of the hazard he incurs a 1 stroke penalty for slipping and moving the ball and 1 stroke for dropping his ball back in play, correct? Or could place the ball back to it's original position with a 1 stroke penalty?

Funny you say about players not knowing the rules got a good chuckle last night playing with a member from this board that will remain nameless almost a scratch player recently won the club championship didn't know he couldn't ground his club in a hazard, oooooo what a laugh we had!

[LobWedge]

Let me give you another perfect example of how the rules are not straight-forward, in the eyes of people who play all the time, and not the actual rules official.

Why is this rule the way it is....??


If I knock my ball of the tee on the tee box, I may replace it with no penalty, as I have not made an effort to actually hit the ball.

If I knock my ball with practice swings, a few feet to the side, when my ball is laying in the rough, I must replace the ball, and take a one stroke penalty for doing so.

What is the difference between the two? In both instances I did not make an attempt to actually hit the ball.

As a golfer who is getting into the game, or say someone who does not have the book memorized, why not make this rule uniform for all instances?

Just using this as an example, of how the rules could be simplified with a uniform ruling.

It's no secret that even golf pros, and analysts, have been pushing to simplify the rules for a while now.

Answer this question, and you'll have your answer.

What is the one difference between a ball that's within the teeing ground at the start of the hole, and one that's lying in the rough, fairway, bunker, green, water hazard, etc?

[Txxxxxxx]

Answer this question, and you'll have your answer.

What is the one difference between a ball that's within the teeing ground at the start of the hole, and one that's lying in the rough, fairway, bunker, green, water hazard, etc?

Personally, I know the answer to the question. HOWEVER, it is still something that could be simplified.

If I hit the ball off the tee with a practice swing, and the ball goes forward off the tee box, this is ALSO 'IN-PLAY'. But I am still able to replace the ball, as I did not attempt to hit it off the tee, and just knocked it with the toe of my driver....

If I made an attempt to hit the ball, and popped it up like a moron, and the ball lay in the same place, then it is IN PLAY, even if it only went 20 yards away.

[LobWedge]

So to clarify, is ball is in the hazard, he wants to first identify his ball and then assuming he wanted to assess is lie to see if he will play it and in the process slips moves his ball, even though the player was unsure if he was going to play from the hazard or take his penalty and take the ball out of the hazard he incurs a 1 stroke penalty for slipping and moving the ball and 1 stroke for dropping his ball back in play, correct? Or could place the ball back to it's original position with a 1 stroke penalty?

Funny you say about players not knowing the rules got a good chuckle last night playing with a member from this board that will remain nameless almost a scratch player recently won the club championship didn't know he couldn't ground his club in a hazard, oooooo what a laugh we had!

The bottom line is, there's no requirement to go in and identify the ball. If the player either knows, or is virtually certain that his ball is in that hazard, he can proceed under 26-1 and substitute another ball. If he proceeds in to the hazard to "identify" or possibly play the ball as it lies, he does so at his own risk. The ball (if it's his) is still in play and can be played as it lies.

[Big Johnny69]

How about finding a less direct route to your ball before going to retrieve it? That is common sense in action with regard to the rules. The ball is still in play, and the player is on the hook for a ball in play that moves as a direct result of his actions. 26 allows the player to substitute a ball when taking relief.

Like I said, purists/old schoolers simply state "the rules are the rules" instead of being open to the possibilty that perhaps a decision could be added or a provision could be added to the rules. Not all golf courses are flat, unfortunately.

[Txxxxxxx]

The bottom line is, there's no requirement to go in and identify the ball. If the player either knows, or is virtually certain that his ball is in that hazard, he can proceed under 26-1 and substitute another ball. If he proceeds in to the hazard to "identify" or possibly play the ball as it lies, he does so at his own risk. The ball (if it's his) is still in play and can be played as it lies.

What if he could have played it where it was, but then he knocked it into an unplayable area by accident. I mean, he doesn't want to just hit it and risk a penalty for playing the wrong ball as well!!! HAHA!

[LobWedge]

Personally, I know the answer to the question. HOWEVER, it is still something that could be simplified.

If I hit the ball off the tee with a practice swing, and the ball goes forward off the tee box, this is ALSO 'IN-PLAY'. But I am still able to replace the ball, as I did not attempt to hit it off the tee, and just knocked it with the toe of my driver....

If I made an attempt to hit the ball, and popped it up like a moron, and the ball lay in the same place, then it is IN PLAY, even if it only went 20 yards away.

This part of your statement is wrong. The ball is only in play if the player intends to make a stroke at it. A practice swing is not an intent to make a stroke. The ball is still not in play, and can be replaced without penalty.

[LobWedge]

What if he could have played it where it was, but then he knocked it into an unplayable area by accident. I mean, he doesn't want to just hit it and risk a penalty for playing the wrong ball as well!!! HAHA!

Read my post. There's no requirement to identify the ball if you're proceeding under 26-1. There's always a requirement to identify it if you're going to play it, regardless of where it lies.

[Txxxxxxx]

This part of your statement is wrong. The ball is only in play if the player intends to make a stroke. A practice swing is not an intent to make a stroke. The ball is still not in play, and can be replaced without penalty.

Thank you for proving my point.

My point is. If I am a golfer, and hit the ball to the exact same spot as if I hit the ball a mile in the sky, technically, that part of the course is not the tee-box.

In both instances, the golfer does not INTEND to hit the ball, but moves it.

As I said, I KNOW the rule, but it is a perfect example of a rule, that could be simplified, and made uniform.

You hit the ball without intending to, replace it with no penalty.

OR

Whether on the tee or "in play", you hit the ball and it moves, you play it where it lies without a penalty stroke.

OR

You hit the ball off the tee or "in play" with a practice swing, you replace it and take a penalty stroke.

These are all possibilities to make the rule book less pages.


And as I said before, The Golf Channel and the likes, have all talked about making the rules of golf more simple, and how it has discourage a lot of participation. So I'm not sure how we can argue that.

[Txxxxxxx]

Read my post. There's no requirement to identify the ball if you're proceeding under 26-1. There's always a requirement to identify it if you're going to play it, regardless of where it lies.

I know. But if you are able to play the ball in the hazard, you can see that it is a possibility, then go down to identify the ball due to the fact it may not be visible, slip and knock it into an unplayable area of the hazard. You now have to drop taking two penalty strokes. Is this correct?

[Big Johnny69]

Thank you for proving my point.

My point is. If I am a golfer, and hit the ball to the exact same spot as if I hit the ball a mile in the sky, technically, that part of the course is not the tee-box.

In both instances, the golfer does not INTEND to hit the ball, but moves it.

As I said, I KNOW the rule, but it is a perfect example of a rule, that could be simplified, and made uniform.

You hit the ball without intending to, replace it with no penalty.

OR

Whether on the tee or "in play", you hit the ball and it moves, you play it where it lies without a penalty stroke.

OR

You hit the ball off the tee or "in play" with a practice swing, you replace it and take a penalty stroke.

These are all possibilities to make the rule book less pages.


And as I said before, The Golf Channel and the likes, have all talked about making the rules of golf more simple, and how it has discourage a lot of participation. So I'm not sure how we can argue that.

See post 36 above in regards to the bolded section. Its almost like its mandatory to take an oath upon completion of rules tests to never question the rules. I fully accept rules official must adhere to the rule book, but there is nothing wrong with questioning a rule or how its worded. But if you look back in any of the rule threads, I don't think I've ever seen a RO state "You might be on to something there" or "That's a good point".

I'm sure all the ROs here are against the proposed "relaxed" rules brought forth by TGC for the weekend golfer.

This is dumb now, time to move on.

[LobWedge]

Thank you for proving my point.

My point is. If I am a golfer, and hit the ball to the exact same spot as if I hit the ball a mile in the sky, technically, that part of the course is not the tee-box.

In both instances, the golfer does not INTEND to hit the ball, but moves it.

As I said, I KNOW the rule, but it is a perfect example of a rule, that could be simplified, and made uniform.

You hit the ball without intending to, replace it with no penalty.

OR

Whether on the tee or "in play", you hit the ball and it moves, you play it where it lies without a penalty stroke.

OR

You hit the ball off the tee or "in play" with a practice swing, you replace it and take a penalty stroke.

These are all possibilities to make the rule book less pages.


And as I said before, The Golf Channel and the likes, have all talked about making the rules of golf more simple, and how it has discourage a lot of participation. So I'm not sure how we can argue that.

What could be more simple than "in play", and "not in play"?

Under your scenario, what happens if I tee the ball and it falls off the tee? Am I now penalized? According to you, the ball is in play.

And by the way, think about where the Golf Channel's money comes from. Of course they're going to bash the rules. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Take their comments with a grain of salt.

[Big Johnny69]

What could be more simple than "in play", and "not in play"?

Under your scenario, what happens if I tee the ball and it falls off the tee? Am I now penalized? According to you, the ball is in play.

And by the way, think about where the Golf Channel's money comes from. Of course they're going to bash the rules. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Take their comments with a grain of salt.

All of his scenarios involved "hitting" the ball. Falling off is a different scenario where you'd have to take into account the weight of the golfer, strength and direction of the wind, the shifting of the tectonic plates, the polar gravitational pull, etc.

Again dumb, I really need to leave this.

[Txxxxxxx]

What could be more simple than "in play", and "not in play"?

Under your scenario, what happens if I tee the ball and it falls off the tee? Am I now penalized? According to you, the ball is in play.

And by the way, think about where the Golf Channel's money comes from. Of course they're going to bash the rules. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Take their comments with a grain of salt.

I'm using the example that I gave you. If I am swinging near my ball on the tee, and it leaves the tee box area, why is that not "in play"? It has left the tee box and ended up in the same area as if I topped the ball or popped it straight up in the air. Technically, that part of the course would be an area that one would deem "in play".

One instance I did not intend to hit it, and the other instance I mis-hit it.

If the rule was uniform, with any of the three rulings I gave as examples, there would be no question either way.

So for example, if I knocked the ball off the tee, and the rule stated that any time a golfer hits a ball unintentionally, he is able to replace it without penalty, it would suffice and would be practical.

If it stated penalty stroke and replace in both instances, then that would be tough, SOL for the golfer who knocks it off. Same as if the guy slips and knocks his ball while trying to identify it.

In both cases, he/she would be aware of the circumstances and the rule would be the same.

As I mentioned above, this is just an example of a rule, that would never be in question, if it were the same ruling for each scenario.

[AAA]

You hit the ball without intending to, replace it with no penalty.

OR

You hit the ball off the tee or "in play" with a practice swing, you replace it and take a penalty stroke.

Surely hitting with a practice swing is the same as without intending to.

[Txxxxxxx]

Surely hitting with a practice swing is the same as without intending to.

Yes, it is.

With a uniform rule, you can either penalize this one stroke, OR, replace and play from the same spot WITHOUT a penalty stroke. 😉

[John]

I really don't think that the rules of golf keep anyone away from the game, i play with guys that keep handicaps and play by the rules and i play with people like my wife or father in law who take double par max on holes, don't drop properly or retee after hitting a ball ob and they love the game because they literally don't care a lick about the rules and i couldn't care any less either as long as they are having fun and keeping pace. To each their own but this archaic way of looking at the rules and this strange inability to even ponder questioning if they truly do make sense is really weird to me.

[Big Johnny69]

I really don't think that the rules of golf keep anyone away from the game, i play with guys that keep handicaps and play by the rules and i play with people like my wife or father in law who take double par max on holes, don't drop properly or retee after hitting a ball ob and they love the game because they literally don't care a lick about the rules and i couldn't care any less either as long as they are having fun and keeping pace. To each their own but this archaic way of looking at the rules and this strange inability to even ponder questioning if they truly do make sense is really weird to me.

I'm with you on this one buddy. I mentioned some of the same things in post 42.

[Kilroy]

If the rules were changed every time someone complained what would we have? Golf is 600 years old. This has been discussed to death over the centuries and thankfully the rules changes are very gradual and well considered. Golf isn't played on a pool table. The rules are complex because infinite situations exist. They may not all seem to be 'fair' but they are 'equitable' - the same for everyone.

[BC MIST]

With a uniform rule, you can either penalize this one stroke, OR, replace and play from the same spot WITHOUT a penalty stroke. ��

By suggesting this kind of uniformity, would you not be eliminating the concept of "fairness" to the rule that is already present?
If my ball is NOT in play, I am not penalized for moving it. That makes sense.
If my ball IS in play, I am penalized for moving it. That also makes sense
But to penalize both, or not penalize either, does that makes sense?

[Big Johnny69]

If the rules were changed every time someone complained what would we have? Golf is 600 years old. This has been discussed to death over the centuries and thankfully the rules changes are very gradual and well considered. Golf isn't played on a pool table. The rules are complex because infinite situations exist. They may not all seem to be 'fair' but they are 'equitable' - the same for everyone.

Nobody has asked to change the rules every time there is a complaint. People can believe, like myself, that some rules could be re-visited or re-worded for clarification, or a decision added to a rule. It doesn't mean we don't abide by then. But some of us find it odd that when it comes to questioning the rules, it seems everyone except ROs are open-minded to change (whether that change was ever to happen or not).

[BC MIST]

But some of us find it odd that when it comes to questioning the rules, it seems everyone except ROs are open-minded to change (whether that change was ever to happen or not).

IMO, those most interested in changing, modifying, clarifying.... the Rules of golf, are those highly experienced officials/referees who both know the Rules exceptionally well, but also know the history of the Rules and the logic behind their implementation. Each time there is a rewriting of the rules or decisions, there are dozens and dozens of changes and clarifications that take place, and that, over time, has made things better. We are very fortunate to have in Ottawa, two of these people who have worked major PGA/LPGA Tour events, as well as regular Tour events, served on the Joint Rules Committee, and on scores of occasions, shared their knowledge and expertise with us. Often, this information makes it easy to understand why certain rules need to put into effect for all possible scenarios under a specific rule, rather than isolated ones which many of you seem to focus on.

At the beginning of our Level 4 Rules Seminar in April, 2013, we were each asked to select a rule of decision that we felt need some worked and there was no shortage of suggestions and they WERE taken seriously.

There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning a rule, but as I said above, it's also important to look at the "big picture," beforehand regarding the rule, and not just focus on one isolated incident. However, and IMO, much of the questioning of the rules is based on the fact that if one has to play by them, one's scores and handicaps will go up, and some egos have difficulty with that.

[Big Johnny69]

IMO, those most interested in changing, modifying, clarifying.... the Rules of golf, are those highly experienced officials/referees who both know the Rules exceptionally well, but also know the history of the Rules and the logic behind their implementation. Each time there is a rewriting of the rules or decisions, there are dozens and dozens of changes and clarifications that take place, and that, over time, has made things better. We are very fortunate to have in Ottawa, two of these people who have worked major PGA/LPGA Tour events, as well as regular Tour events, served on the Joint Rules Committee, and on scores of occasions, shared their knowledge and expertise with us. Often, this information makes it easy to understand why certain rules need to put into effect for all possible scenarios under a specific rule, rather than isolated ones which many of you seem to focus on.

At the beginning of our Level 4 Rules Seminar in April, 2013, we were each asked to select a rule of decision that we felt need some worked and there was no shortage of suggestions and they WERE taken seriously.

There is certainly nothing wrong with questioning a rule, but as I said above, it's also important to look at the "big picture," beforehand regarding the rule, and not just focus on one isolated incident. However, and IMO, much of the questioning of the rules is based on the fact that if one has to play by them, one's scores and handicaps will go up, and some egos have difficulty with that.

If your suggestions were taken seriously, how come none of our local ROs come forth and share their views and opinions here? It seems anytime we question the rules we get basically the same stale response of "the rules are the rules". I fully respect the time effort that goes into becoming a high level RO, but it doesn't mean you have to look down on those that are not as well versed in the rules in as you are (if due to ignorance or not) and feel the need to seek reason and clarification, or heaven's forbid, question a rule.

And as for the ego remark, I no worry about my handicap going up. I don't play nearly enough to keep my handicap at previous levels and can do a good job on my own raising it from bad play without the help of the rules making it even higher. LOL!!!

[BC MIST]

If your suggestions were taken seriously, how come none of our local ROs come forth and share their views and opinions here? It seems anytime we question the rules we get basically the same stale response of "the rules are the rules". I fully respect the time effort that goes into becoming a high level RO, but it doesn't mean you have to look down on those that are not as well versed in the rules in as you are (if due to ignorance or not) and feel the need to seek reason and clarification, or heaven's forbid, question a rule.

1. Some don't subscribe to Ottawa Golf.
2. Some of us do comment, Gerry, Rich and myself.
3. Generally, we no longer respond to the "rules are stupid" mindset.
4. And most importantly, we do NOT "look down on those that are not as well versed in the rules." In fact, our role is to help golfers who want to learn more about the rules, whether in tournament play, through seminars that we offer to various groups or through continuing education for those who want to achieve certification at any of the four levels. A couple of years ago Gerry and I offered a free evening rules seminar to Ottawa Golf members. One showed. If we looked down on others, we would not do this. Helping others improve their rules knowledge is what we enjoy doing.
5. We don't have all the answers.

[Kilroy]

I for one am very glad we have ROs here helping everyone understand the rules. Not sure where the 'looking down' comment comes from. Seems that sometimes people are only happy if the news (ruling) is what they want to hear. Sometimes the cry of 'unfair' sounds like an attempt to gather support for not following a rule. Still the rules are the rules, like them or not.

[Big Johnny69]

For not having a basic knowledge of the rules. 18 and 26 are "cornerstone" rules. They are in use in every single round of golf played. If you don't have even a basic understanding of how these work, you shouldn't be playing golf anyway.

I believe this remark is looking down on others. I've been playing for almost 20 years now and didn't know all of rules 18 and 26. So I shouldn't have been playing and enjoying myself all these years.

The fact that others have stated the same things as I have goes to show there is a bit of a skewed perception to those lacking in rule book knowledge from those that are well versed.

[adanac]

I believe this remark is looking down on others. I've been playing for almost 20 years now and didn't know all of rules 18 and 26. So I shouldn't have been playing and enjoying myself all these years.

The fact that others have stated the same things as I have goes to show there is a bit of a skewed perception to those lacking in rule book knowledge from those that are well versed.

If you've been playing for almost 20 years, I'd suggest that you should have a good grasp of Rules 18 (ball at rest moved) and Rule 26 (water hazards). They are quite easy to learn and understand. I presume that you own a current Rule book?

[John]

Way to drive Geoff's point home!

[Big Johnny69]

Way to drive Geoff's point home!

Hahaha! And no I don't own a current rule book, or ever have.