[Jim Nugent]

Woodland hits his second shot on #4 into the rough next to the green... a sprinkler head 'impedes' his stance... so he gets a free drop out of the rough onto the fringe... and now has a short putt from a perfect lie, instead of a tricky chip out of not so easy rough.

Making it more Kafkaesque, the announcer congratulates Woodland for making such a masterful drop.

Seems like the rules could easily allow drops, if they are warranted, without giving the player such a huge advantage. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Equally you can find examples of players being screwed by the rules - best to take advantage when you can.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

The rule should indicate "nearest point of relief in same turf type, height of cut, native area, etc."  If you are in rough you drop in rough.  I agree.

[Tom_Doak]

The rule should indicate "nearest point of relief in same turf type, height of cut, native area, etc."  If you are in rough you drop in rough.  I agree.

I don't agree.  With that change you are going further to the side of the fairness police, and golf is not fair by nature.  If the ball in question hadn't wound up where it did, it could have wound up three feet in any direction ... some of which is short grass and not rough.


The Rules were written when sheep determined the difference between fairway and rough, which changed from week to week, so the Rules do not distinguish areas "through the green".  I hope they stay that way, even if it is a naive hope.  After all there are lots of $$ at stake now.


And by the way, part of the fault here is that modern courses have so many sprinkler heads around the green [some throwing in to water the green, some throwing out to water the surrounds].  Combined with the modern preference for chipping areas, it results in way too many situations where a player gets to put his hands on the ball.

[SL_Solow]

Gaming the rules?  He followed the rules.  We can argue whether we like a particular rule, I am closer to Tom on this one, but to suggest or imply that someone is acting unfairly is off base.

[Wayne_Kozun]

And by the way, part of the fault here is that modern courses have so many sprinkler heads around the green [some throwing in to water the green, some throwing out to water the surrounds].  Combined with the modern preference for chipping areas, it results in way too many situations where a player gets to put his hands on the ball.

Or you get the issue where a player has to putt over the sprinkler head as there are so many of them and you don't get line of sight relief.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Woodland hits his second shot on #4 into the rough next to the green... a sprinkler head 'impedes' his stance... so he gets a free drop out of the rough onto the fringe... and now has a short putt from a perfect lie, instead of a tricky chip out of not so easy rough. Making it more Kafkaesque, the announcer congratulates Woodland for making such a masterful drop. Seems like the rules could easily allow drops, if they are warranted, without giving the player such a huge advantage.

Totally disagree. Good for him to recognize that the rules can help you sometimes, too.

The rule should indicate "nearest point of relief in same turf type, height of cut, native area, etc."  If you are in rough you drop in rough.  I agree.

No thanks. That sounds like a horrible idea.

I agree with SL. He followed the Rules. He didn't "game" them.

Here I thought this was going to be a post about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZIVgiwqCBY

[Garland Bayley]

Now gaming the rules would be to take the first drop near a drain so the second drop could be on the green.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Karma came into play for Woodland as he had to play his bunker shot on 10 from an unraked bunker

[Jon Wiggett]

Total non-story Jim. Woodland followed the rules. You win some, you lose some.


Tom B,


it is this sort of attitude striving for some sort of perverse 'FAIRNESS' that have made the rules overly complicated as it is. The rules are the SAME for everyone and it is how you cope with the good and bad breaks that is important.

[Mike_Clayton]

Meanwhile these blokes continue to backstop  Justin Thomas is a serial offender.
There is a lot of silent collusion going on - either that or they just down know the the principle of protecting the field.

[Sean_A]

Meanwhile these blokes continue to backstop  Justin Thomas is a serial offender.
There is a lot of silent collusion going on - either that or they just down know the the principle of protecting the field.

Given how slow the game is, do we really want to promote waiting for guys to mark balls prior to hitting?  Or, is this another bifurcation situation?  At my level we can kid ourselves that balls are backstops....

If it comes down to no bifurcation I say get on with it. 
 
Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

The absolute last thing golf needs are a set of rules where Heights of Cut (HOC) are defined.


It is vague right now in the current wording of the definition of putting green since most collars/areas around the green are "specially prepared for putting" as well. Does anyone know if the committee's definition of putting green includes a reference to HOC?


I'd love to see a player mark a ball on the collar and then have the committee explain - within the rules - why they can't.


As for the drop, most golfers are absolutely screwed over by cart path drops. Few actually let themselves get screwed.

[Mike_Clayton]

Sean_A
Linking backstopping to the pace of play is silly. It's the one single instance where today's tour pros care about pace of play - completely coincidentally when it might save them a shot if they get lucky.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,


if the players are doing this to help each other then that should be addressed by penalising the offenders but you need to prove it. I have never come across any professional player wanting to do this but maybe it is rife on the PGA Tour. If it is then there is obviously a cultural problem.


Kyle,


the putting surface is the shortest cut of grass. You cannot mark the ball outside this (other than when the rules allow) so any committee would have an easy time of it to explain.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean_A
Linking backstopping to the pace of play is silly. It's the one single instance where today's tour pros care about pace of play - completely coincidentally when it might save them a shot if they get lucky.

Not at all, when we consider all golfers rather than focusing on pros. Last time I checked, pros don't hold up the pace of play when I play, but the rules which more or less only effect very, very good golfers can certainly hold up play.  Hence another reason why the rules should be bifurcated.

Ciao 

[Mike_Clayton]

Sean_A

The rules are bifurcated already.

[Sean_A]

Sean_A

The rules are bifurcated already.

Its time to go all in rather than continuing to pretend folks like me play a game similar to a touring pro. One of the first places to start is rules effecting pace of play. I like the new rules coming in this next year...lets keep it coming.

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Sean_A

The rules are bifurcated already.

Its time to go all in rather than continuing to pretend folks like me play a game similar to a touring pro. One of the first places to start is rules effecting pace of play. I like the new rules coming in this next year...lets keep it coming.

Ciao

Pace of play will actually be slower next year. Players gardening the line on their 30ft putt will negate any beneficial changes.

[Kyle Harris]

Jon Wigget,


Neither the Definition of Putting Green nor Rule 16 make any mention of HOC or comparative HOC. Only the term "specially prepared" appears. Seems fairly straightforward to argue that a collar is an area specially prepared for putting, especially as they are increasingly mowed to within mere thousandths of the actual putting surface. As to what defines special prepartion vs. not special preparation we have no idea. If I chose to not mow or roll the putting surface on that particular morning, does it cease to be a putting green for the day?


However, adding some term of hyperbole would help the confusion.

[Thomas Dai]

Amending the rules to assist speed of play is imo a move in the right direction. Hopefully any rule change such as the one Ryan mentions above, might be reversed if the opposite proves to be the effect.
In addition, as I currently understand it not all the new rules will be applied to pro golf or even elite golf.
As to the subject of backstopping, and I appreciate that some surrounding the pro game are concerned about its ‘use’ and the protection of the field etc, there is a speed of play aspect to it as well. The “No faffing around, mark your ball quick or I’m playing and if your stationary ball helps me it’s your fault for neither you nor your caddy pulling your finger out and marking it quick enough!” approach. And then there’s the matter of how far off the green should be the “wait on a bit chaps while I stroll up there at snail speed to mark my ball before you play your shot so you can’t use my ball as a backstop” distance. Perhaps peer pressure to mark-it-quick will have its place? Perhaps not though.
As to rule drops from sprinkler heads, well as has been said, the number and positioning of sprinkler heads has an effect. But then again I’m probably in the old curmudgeon camp on irrigation and would prefer hand watering of greens and tees only via hoses from distant manholes as in decades gone by and if this means some courses don’t look ‘green enough’, well tough, it’s a seasonal game in plenty of places in the world why not in a few more!
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon Wigget,


Neither the Definition of Putting Green nor Rule 16 make any mention of HOC or comparative HOC. Only the term "specially prepared" appears. Seems fairly straightforward to argue that a collar is an area specially prepared for putting, especially as they are increasingly mowed to within mere thousandths of the actual putting surface. As to what defines special prepartion vs. not special preparation we have no idea. If I chose to not mow or roll the putting surface on that particular morning, does it cease to be a putting green for the day?


However, adding some term of hyperbole would help the confusion.

Kyle Haris,


then why not argue that the fairway, semi-rough or any area of the course is specially prepared? ? I have yet to meet anyone until now who could not identify what constituted the putting green. Please try to use some intelligence in future or desist.


Sean,


I have to disagree about separate rules. The pros should also play to the same rules as the rest.

[Kyle Harris]

Jon Wigget,


Neither the Definition of Putting Green nor Rule 16 make any mention of HOC or comparative HOC. Only the term "specially prepared" appears. Seems fairly straightforward to argue that a collar is an area specially prepared for putting, especially as they are increasingly mowed to within mere thousandths of the actual putting surface. As to what defines special prepartion vs. not special preparation we have no idea. If I chose to not mow or roll the putting surface on that particular morning, does it cease to be a putting green for the day?


However, adding some term of hyperbole would help the confusion.

Kyle Haris,


then why not argue that the fairway, semi-rough or any area of the course is specially prepared? ? I have yet to meet anyone until now who could not identify what constituted the putting green. Please try to use some intelligence in future or desist.


Sean,


I have to disagree about separate rules. The pros should also play to the same rules as the rest.

Jon,


But that is sort of my point. You can "tell the difference" but the "difference" is not particularly codified within the rules, now is it? And that's one of the murky bits, because there are courses where you CAN'T tell the difference between what is putting green and what isn't - and in those cases the committee is responsible for defining it and I have yet to see a definition within a set of Local Rules that defines the putting green based on HOC since they'll usually go out and paint dots on the intended edge of the putting green.


But the physical edge of the green at a more formalized golf course is based on... "special preparation?" What actually does that mean? Rolling? Mowing Frequency? Bench Setting? All of those things are done to approach areas as well as putting surfaces so the preparation of said areas are no more special. So yes, I get your point about seeing the difference in HOC, but that matters not to the rules of golf. The only thing that matters is the intent of the "special preparation." How about those 18-26" wide "frog hair" areas that are just mowed slightly higher?


As you alluded to, actually defining the putting green based on "closest mown" would be more clear than the current rules for courses with more defined edges between HOC.


Since the rules in that case make no commentary on how to measure course conditioning, the only definable measure of the putting green is the intent of the preparation for that surface. Ask any number of superintendents who care about ball roll off the putting surface and you have "special preparation" so if I, as a superintendent were to tell a competitor that I am maintaining that area off the "grassed" putting surface with the intent of having players putt from it primarily, am I now defining that area as putting green?


Does using a stimpmeter on the approach or fairway during the course a tournament imply special intent? Perhaps this is the way to end that abhorrent practice!


The point here is: If I were to mark my ball in certain areas near the green surface I most certainly have a case that one cannot specifically use a definition or rule to stop me UNTIL the committee physically and clearly defines the specific areas of the golf course based on either height of cut or location.


And this leads to the idea around the responses to the original post: The rules make no commentary on the condition, type, or height of turf in defining the difference between the non-hazard/tee areas: "through the green" and "putting surface". Therefore, Gary Woodland was not gaming the rules. The case I made above WOULD be gaming the rules since I am attempting to exploit a vague point. 

[jeffwarne]

Jon Wigget,





Kyle Haris,


then why not argue that the fairway, semi-rough or any area of the course is specially prepared? ? I have yet to meet anyone until now who could not identify what constituted the putting green. Please try to use some intelligence in future or desist.

Jon,
In the land of ego and money equating to who can prepare the tightest surface, I've played in MANY events where the green had to be defined by white dots and the "chipping area" was equally tight(or as I found out last week ), TIGHTER and Shorter than the putting green-and usually of course damper and softer

[Sean_A]

Jon,
In the land of ego and money equating to who can prepare the tightest surface, I've played in MANY events where the green had to be defined by white dots and the "chipping area" was equally tight(or as I found out last week ), TIGHTER and Shorter than the putting green-and usually of course damper and softer

Jon

There are some greens at Burnham that I still can't identify the edge.  Its not uncommon at all to question where greens end and fairways begin. 

Thats fair enough if you think the rules should be the same for all, but I am far from convinced at the base level of equipment.  I don't see any meaningful rollback without bifurcation.  Many of the time saving and common sense rules could be applied across the board.  I have been heavily influenced by J Morrissett and for very good reasons...see below.

The primary goal of this project is to simplify the Rules of Golf to make them more readily understandable. Today, we sense that most people are too intimidated by the Rules even to open the Rules book to look for an answer (which is a tremendous waste, given the two million or so copies of the Rules of Golf printed by the USGA every two years). We believe that the current Rules are a great deal easier to understand than the pre-1984 versions of the code; however, we believe that the desire by the R&A and USGA to be "fair" and to limit or reduce the severity of penalties has lead to an increase in complexity in the recent editions.

In order to simplify the Rules, we believe there will need to be significant compromises in principle for the sake of simplicity. These compromises will be in both directions, with some quite lenient (e.g., the elimination of dropping; the elimination of the distinction between water hazards and lateral water hazards) and some harsh (e.g., no relief under Rules 24-2 and 25-1 for intervention on the line of putt). The ultimate question will be whether the increased simplicity of the Rules will more than offset these philosophical losses.

Occasionally the Rules go to great lengths to address unlikely situations (e.g., Rule 25-1b(iv)). Many such provisions will be eliminated, with the occasional good break and bad break as the result. We believe that the overall goal of simplicity should be more important than the results in some unlikely and rare situations.

The goal of a simpler code should have a number of side-effects, such as a thinner Rules book and the need for fewer Decisions. Many people have pointed to the fact that there are more than 1200 Decisions as a sign that the Rules are too complicated; they may have a point. While we do not necessarily believe that shorter is always simpler (i.e., sometimes the effort to be concise can lead to confusion (e.g., the use of "otherwise"), we do believe that a simpler code should, overall, be shorter than the current one. Like it or not, the general public does associate length with complexity (hence the ignorant cries to return to the original 13 rules).

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOne.html

When we set out to rewrite the Rules of Golf to see how a simple code would look, we used the current Rules as the basis for our work. Having worked on part of the evolution of the current Rules during our time with the USGA, we're biased in that we think they are pretty darn good. We believed that there was a fair chance that our project would reveal that it would be undesirable in many cases to make drastic changes to the Rules because the philosophical compromises required would be too great (i.e., that a more complicated set of Rules that provided for desirable results would be preferable to a simpler code that yielded the occasional strange result.

Well, we were wrong. As we dug into the current Rules of Golf with an eye devoted to the single goal of simplification, we quickly realized that there are in fact many opportunities to simplify the code without dramatically changing the way the game is played. Many of the complications in the current code exist for the purpose of addressing situations at one or both ends of the extremes. For example, current Rule 26 provides for two additional relief procedures for a ball in a lateral water hazard. We believe that relatively few golfers know the difference in relief options for a water hazard (yellow stakes) and lateral water hazard (red stakes). The distinction exists mainly to protect the way certain holes are played (e.g., 12 and 15 at Augusta National, 17 at TPC-Sawgrass). To date, the argument against eliminating the distinction and, primarily, allowing a player to drop within two club-lengths of where his ball last crossed the hazard margin has been that the holes referenced (and holes similar to them) would play too differently. It would be an outrage, went the argument, to allow a player on the 12th at Augusta National whose ball clears the water hazard and rolls back into to it to be able to drop on the green side of the hazard, allowing him a good chance to get away with a bogey. Likewise, think how differently the island-green 17th at TPC-Sawgrass would play if a player whose ball last crossed the hazard margin at the green (e.g., with a tee shot that goes over the green) could drop on the fringe (or even the green itself if some cases) and two-putt for bogey. However, is the confusion among most golfers as to the relief options worth ensuring that these holes play the way they do? Sure, there are similar holes around the world, but they make up a very small percentage of the world's golf holes. We thought the reason for the distinction not to be strong enough to warrant the complication and confusion.

We must emphasize that several of the ideas contained in the draft of Code One are not original (e.g., the elimination of dropping, the elimination of the distinction between the two types of water hazards, the elimination of the ability to replace or repair a club that becomes damaged in the normal course of play). Over the years a number of ideas have been suggested for specific Rules, and we used the ones that we believed were positive changes towards the goal of simplification.

The elimination of dropping provides perhaps the best example of the debate towards a simpler code. The Rules of Golf have incorporated the concept of dropping a ball (e.g., when taking relief from a cart path) on the philosophical grounds that luck is, and should be, a part of the game. Unpredictable results (both good and bad) can occur when a ball is dropped, just as when a ball is struck. The R&A and USGA have liked that element of chance that dropping ensures. However, at what price? Consider the many complications that dropping introduces to the Rules: how is the ball to be dropped; when must it be re-dropped; when does a player keep dropping until the drop satisfies the Rule he is using; when must a player drop twice and then place? While we agree that luck should be part of the game, we believe that the value of significant simplification in this one area outweighs the philosophical reasoning behind it. Hence, the change (and good-bye to current Rule 20-2).

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()