Do you think this is fair?

[BC MIST]

No but it was Henrik's fault he drove it into the rough so he should have, in my opinion, had to have dropped it in the same rough. But heaven forbid common sense would dictate....

(1) We play the ball as it lies.
(2) There is no fairway or rough.
Common sense, therefore, dictates that when we get relief from an obstruction, we do (1). Anything else lacks common sense.

[fundonny]

You just won't accept the rules the way they are will you, fair or unfair.

I have no choice but to accept it. Them's the rules. Just zero sense to this particular incident/application of the rule.

[LobWedge]

If you really want to blame someone, blame the course architect for putting a drainage grate so close to the fairway.

[Golfbum]

Free relief = 1 clublength
When a penalty is involved it's 2 clublengths.

You are correct Dan. I was thinking of something else when I wrote this.

I have no problem with the rule as it favours all players in the field.

If that had been Tiger would there even be a discussion?

[jonf]

(1) We play the ball as it lies.
(2) There is no fairway or rough.
Common sense, therefore, dictates that when we get relief from an obstruction, we do (1). Anything else lacks common sense.

Common sense dictates that there IS fairway and rough, particularly given the rule cited earlier which, by describing closely mown areas as fairway like, implies a recognition of the distinction between fairway and rough. Common sense dictates that, since this distinction is made (indirectly) in the rules, and everybody who steps on a golf course know and sees this distinction, the rules should have provisions which recognize this distinction and its affect on a golfer's options.

[AAA]

the rules should have provisions which recognize this distinction and its affect on a golfer's options.

Why? The game has managed well enough without for 250 years.

[fundonny]

The NFL has a competition committee that meets every offseason to discuss rules, to see if any need tweaking to improve the game, based on what they witnessed on the field the previous season (example, the Tom Brady tuck rule). They don't always get it right, but at least they recognize that it's needed.

And GB, if it was Tiger or any other golfer, I still would have started the thread.

And BC, no difference between rough and fairway just because a rule book says so????? What, are my eyes wrong???? Why don't I just move my ball on to the fairway everytime as a recreational golfer because hey, there's no difference. Some of you sound like a rulebook extremists LOL.

And the argument that it balances out - the good rules balance out the not so good rules - come on.

[Kilroy]

So will you only follow the rules you deem fair? If we play a match will you protest when I use the rule and drop in the fairway?

[BC MIST]

And BC, no difference between rough and fairway just because a rule book says so????? What, are my eyes wrong???? Why don't I just move my ball on to the fairway everytime as a recreational golfer because hey, there's no difference. Some of you sound like a rulebook extremists LOL.

If there is any good in YOUR extremist point of view, (remember, you want a rule that has been around for centuries, changed) it's that you want the situation to be more difficult on the golfer rather than easier. Most golfers who object to some rules selfishly do not to have to accept the consequences of their actions and want their scores to be lower.

While we all classify long grass as rough and short as fairway, the truth that eludes many is that the game really does not distinguish between the two. North Americans are a spoiled lot in that many feel that if they hit the fairway they should get a perfect lie and if the fairways are not perfect then we MUST be allowed a "6" preferred lie on the cut portion of your own fairway." You won't see many Brits, who know the game better than most, playing this way.

Regardless, as long as there are those who think the game should be "fair," these kinds of discussions will exist. Play 10 games and count the breaks, both good and bad, and I would wager that the "fair" and "unfair" would end up about even. That's golf.

[spackler]

If there is no fairway or rough, why the new groove rule? Why bother making shots from the rough more punitive if there is no rough?

[jeffc]

Why? The game has managed well enough without for 250 years.

with all due respect since I think you add incredible insight into this forum, this has to be one of the silliest comments ever. Rules in every sport are constantly being reviewed, modified, and updated as the game changes.

Laws in which we live by day to day are as well. The world is a constantly changing and evolving place. To simply state that something is right because it is 250 years old is in my opinion short sighted and narrow minded.

[gbower]

The rules of golf do get looked at on a regular basis and changes come out every two years for the decisions and every four years for the rules. This is done jointly with the R & A, the USGA and the RCGA. Dean Ryan from the Ottawa area will be representing the RCGA in these discussions.

[justsomeguy]

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.

Not to mention that for the sake of consistency we would also want to change the rules for relief from abnormal ground conditions (i.e., GUR, casual water, etc.) and perhaps even water hazards, unplayable lies...

Frankly I would rather see the only current reference to "closely-mown area" in Rule 25 removed, so that you always get relief from an embedded ball "through the green". Many of the pro tours already have this as a local rule anyway, and it would simplify things for the average golfer.

[jonf]

Why? The game has managed well enough without for 250 years.

[jonf]

If there is any good in YOUR extremist point of view, (remember, you want a rule that has been around for centuries, changed) it's that you want the situation to be more difficult on the golfer rather than easier. Most golfers who object to some rules selfishly do not to have to accept the consequences of their actions and want their scores to be lower.

While we all classify long grass as rough and short as fairway, the truth that eludes many is that the game really does not distinguish between the two. North Americans are a spoiled lot in that many feel that if they hit the fairway they should get a perfect lie and if the fairways are not perfect then we MUST be allowed a "6" preferred lie on the cut portion of your own fairway." You won't see many Brits, who know the game better than most, playing this way.

Regardless, as long as there are those who think the game should be "fair," these kinds of discussions will exist. Play 10 games and count the breaks, both good and bad, and I would wager that the "fair" and "unfair" would end up about even. That's golf.

The prevalence of this "the rule has been around for hundreds of years so there can't be anything wrong with it" attitude is, quite frankly, disturbing. There are some very bright folks on this forum, and I find it hard to believe that they can even suggest that because a rule is old, it is good. I don't think anyone needs me to list off the many archaic, inhumane laws that have been changed within the last 70 years. I mean, honestly, give me something better than "its old, therefore it's good."

And, as I pointed out, the rules do in fact recognize the distinction between rough and fairway, they just don't follow it through to it's logical conclusion. The truth is, the rules recognize the existence of the fairway in one very specific instance, but then ignore it in all others.

[LobWedge]

Why? The game has managed well enough without for 250 years.

with all due respect since I think you add incredible insight into this forum, this has to be one of the silliest comments ever. Rules in every sport are constantly being reviewed, modified, and updated as the game changes.

Laws in which we live by day to day are as well. The world is a constantly changing and evolving place. To simply state that something is right because it is 250 years old is in my opinion short sighted and narrow minded.

I don't know why there's such a problem with AAA's statement, it's true. In fact, the game of golf has survived on its basic premise for nearly 7 centuries. The only other game that I can think would compare in that respect is soccer.

[jonf]

I don't know why there's such a problem with AAA's statement, it's true. In fact, the game of golf has survived on its basic premise for nearly 7 centuries. The only other game that I can think would compare in that respect is soccer.

nobody is suggesting changing the basic premise of golf. Tweaking the rules to make them more logical doesn't change the basic premise. Suggesting making changes also should not ruffle nearly so many feathers or create such defensive posturing. It is one part of golf that I just will never get: why, apparently, it is the only place on earth where change is inherently bad.

[LobWedge]

nobody is suggesting changing the basic premise of golf. Tweaking the rules to make them more logical doesn't change the basic premise. Suggesting making changes also should not ruffle nearly so many feathers or create such defensive posturing. It is one part of golf that I just will never get: why, apparently, it is the only place on earth where change is inherently bad.

There is nothing more logical, or simple than "relief within one clublength of an obstruction, not nearer the hole".

The only thing illogical in this whole premise is the poor placement of a drainage grate and/or the poor judgement used when cutting the width of the fairway to allow it to be within one club length of the obstruction.

The rules aren't subjective. Everyone is entitled to the same relief in the same situation.

[fundonny]

Okay, why the 'no closer to the hole'? From my point of view, to not give an advantage that was not earned. So why not add that you can't put it on the fairway either???????????????????????

And Dan, I will obey every rule of course but doesn't mean I agree with it. When I played football, I played by every rule even though I thought the refs were sometimes out of their minds.

[justsomeguy]

And, as I pointed out, the rules do in fact recognize the distinction between rough and fairway, they just don't follow it through to it's logical conclusion. The truth is, the rules recognize the existence of the fairway in one very specific instance, but then ignore it in all others.

Then why not simply delete the one very specific instance?

As I said, the pro tours usually extend the "embedded ball" rule to "through the green" anyway. And I don't think I have ever actually seen a recreational golfer play a ball that was embedded in the mud because it was in the rough instead of the fairway (although I'm sure they exist).

Frankly there is very little support for this distinction as it exists now. Why expand it to the rest of the rules, and complicate something that most golfers already think is indecipherable?

[BC MIST]

The prevalence of this "the rule has been around for hundreds of years so there can't be anything wrong with it" attitude is, quite frankly, disturbing. There are some very bright folks on this forum, and I find it hard to believe that they can even suggest that because a rule is old, it is good.

The rule "play the ball as you find it" is golf. That anyone actually thinks otherwise or thinks that basic premise should be changed, just because it's old, is what is disturbing.
Holy smokes!

[jonf]

Exactly...Play the ball as you find it. To me, moving it from the rough to the fairway doesn't exactly qualify as playing the ball as you find it. Curious that, in this case, the old rules are actually the ones contradicting the basic premise of golf.

Never have i suggested changing a rule just because it is old. I have suggested changing a rule that is illogical, despite the fact it is old.

[BC MIST]

Exactly...Play the ball as you find it. To me, moving it from the rough to the fairway doesn't exactly qualify as playing the ball as you find it. Curious that, in this case, the old rules are actually the ones contradicting the basic premise of golf.

Can't wait to see how you play a shot that is in 6" of casual water or from an area dug out by muskrats or from the paved parking lot.

"rough to the fairway" It's grass to grass. Ironically, on the last nine I played today I hit three balls into the "rough" and ended up with perfect lies and yet three long and straight drives in the "fairway" in horrible lies. Them's the breaks, that part of the game that you extremists want to change.

[jonf]

Well, I guess I just don't get it. First you want me to play the ball as it lies because that's the premise of golf, then you think I'm crazy for suggesting we play the ball as it lies in all circumstances. With every post you are essentially agreeing with everything I say, but somehow end up disagreeing with me anyway. At this point I think you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Logical exceptions to the 'play the ball as it lies' rule have been created because nobody should be forced to play off a sprinkler, etc. So, obviously play it as it lies is NOT a hard and fast rule. Exceptions are made based on circumstances. So, what is extreme (i can't help but chuckle for being called an extremist for using logic and common sense...reminds me of my days at UVic) about making an exception related to moving one's ball from the long grass to the closely mown fairway like areas?

[fundonny]

Jon, you are 100% right. This is just baffling to me that people actually want to argue with absolutely no basis for their argument aside from what is written in the rulebook. Stop regurgitating what is written and use your own free will for goodness sakes. Cripes, someone can write their thesis in psychology on this.

[fundonny]

The ball lies in the rough. Play it in the rough. How complicated is that????????

[Hacker]

The ball lies in the rough. Play it in the rough. How complicated is that????????

You need to get out and play some golf with me FD..........I can make playing a ball from the rough VERY complicated

[gbower]

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.

[justsomeguy]

The ball lies in the rough. Play it in the rough. How complicated is that????????

You really don't know the rules that well, do you?

First of all, Stenson's ball was not lying in the rough - it was lying on an immovable obstruction. The most common immovable obstruction is a cart path, so just remember that whatever changes you wish to make to this rule will also apply to cart paths and other immovable obstructions.

I posted a number of hypothetical questions earlier in this thread on how some common issues about taking relief from immovable obstructions would be dealt with - which have all been conveniently ignored. I can come up with many, many more if I really put my mind to it.

Secondly, immovable obstructions are not the only things on the golf course that allow for relief without penalty - what about abnormal ground conditions like GUR and casual water? Is it logical to differentiate between fairway and rough for relief from immovable obstructions and not for these things too? I don't think so. But now things can really get messy, because areas of GUR and casual water can be pretty large and often span both fairway and rough.

Finally, most golfers think the current rules are too complicated. Few golfers know how to take proper relief from a cart path as it is now - the basic procedure for finding their "nearest point of relief" is either unknown or ignored. Do you really want to add yet another layer of regulations as to where they can drop their ball?

[jonf]

Secondly, immovable obstructions are not the only things on the golf course that allow for relief without penalty - what about abnormal ground conditions like GUR and casual water? Is it logical to differentiate between fairway and rough for relief from immovable obstructions and not for these things too? I don't think so. But now things can really get messy, because areas of GUR and casual water can be pretty large and often span both fairway and rough.

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.

Sure, to write up a rule for that would be difficult and would require some careful wording, but I think the end result is just as easy to follow. Which brings me to the next bit.

Finally, most golfers think the current rules are too complicated. Few golfers know how to take proper relief from a cart path as it is now - the basic procedure for finding their "nearest point of relief" is either unknown or ignored. Do you really want to add yet another layer of regulations as to where they can drop their ball?

Yes, the rules are indeed complicated. But I think for the layman, the change we are suggesting actually makes things less complicated. I don't know the intricacies of the rules, and probably violate them from time to time. 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.

My point is, this situation, which you suggest would become way to complicated for the layman if the rules were changed, likely would not become any more complicated. In fact, I think it would bring the rule closer into line with how most laymen would proceed in such a situation

Furthermore, most haven't a clue, as you've already mentioned, so should we really be concerned about making the indicipherable just slightly more complicated?