[Philippe Binette]

Far Hills, N.J. – Beginning in 2008, a golfer will be allowed to lift a ball for identification in a bunker or water hazard.  However, there now will be a two-stroke penalty for playing a wrong ball from a hazard. In match play, the penalty will be loss of hole.


I don't agree with this rules change because it diminished again the reality of a hazard.

the reason is: every player that gets a buried ball in a bunker will use that rule even though he clearly saw where his ball went in a bunker... a player will see his ball land in a bunker and it's plugged, he will say that he wants to make sure it's his ball (because he doesn't want to get penalize if by 0.0001 % it's not his ball,
he will lift the ball, sand will collapse in the depression that is now widened because of the fingerprints while picking up the ball, so the player would have under the rules improved his lie....

so as soon as a ball will be plugged, players will call for identification


the usga claim that the old rule (where you could hit balls out of a hazard until you find yours) could lesd to complicated situation like when a player hits a unidentified ball out of bounds...
but the odds of that happening are fairly slim (normally when I can't identify my ball, I can't hit it more than 30 yards) compare to the use players could make of the new rule for improving their lie    

[Tom Huckaby]

Phlippe:

These rulemakers are pretty smart, and exceedingly thorough.  I'd be shocked if they didn't think of the potential for abuse, and thus don't also insert some language or instruction somewhere stating that the ball one lifts to identify must then be replaced in as close to its original lie as possible (ie reburied if it was buried in a bunker).  It's just too obvious to be overlooked.

But you never know...

Rules mavens?

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Rule 20-3biii

"in a bunker, the original lie must be re-created as nearly
as possible and the ball must be placed in that lie."

[Tom Huckaby]

Well then there you have it.  Thanks, Kalen.

See, the rulesmakers really aren't dense.

 

[Chris Cupit]

Yes but I have NEVER seen a player re-create a lie as bad as the one he had to begin with and I have also NEVER seen a rules official push or even try to shame the player into making it more difficult.  I hope it has happened, but.....

Bottom line is that some rules changes are mistakes and are fixed almost immediately--i.e. the issue of when a ball is lost in the '04 revision.  Some are "mistakes" and it may take a while to change them.

This change gives the player yet another opportunity to needlessly play "handball" and it stinks

Here's another couple of rules that allow for perfectly legal "cheating":

Your ball with a huge clump of mud on it is just off the green with the mud facing you (you'll have to chip instead of putt).
If you are required to lift your ball under rule 5, 12 or 22 (you are not allowed to clean it in these cases) NOTHING in the rules requires you to even ATTEMPT to put the ball back oriented the same way it was!!!!  While a decision does say you can "tee it up" on the mud clump, you can turn the mud at any other angle and guarrantee yourself clean contact.

Here's another one--you hit a ball in what you think is casual water or GUR.  Mud is all over it.  You want a ruling but there is no official nearby so you invoke rule 3-3 and play a second ball.  A decision specifically allows you to mark the ORIGINAL ball and proceed under  25-1 as you think you should be entitled to.  THEN you can place a second ball where the original lay and play it.  Guess what--under 25-1 you can CLEAN the original ball--thus the player gets to hit both shots with a brand new or clean golf ball!!??
See decision 3-3/13 for this exact situation.

Believe me, this has been brought to the attention of the PGA and USGA rules guys and no one (yet) has a problem with it.

I just think we give a player too many reasons to touch his ball in play already and don't think this is a necessary change.
Even if a player does do a good job re-creating a plugged lie, he has certainly loosened up the sand/soil around the ball that will help him in getting the ball out.

Oh well.....

[Dennis_Harwood]

Philippe--

The prohibition concerning lifting a ball for identification being prohibited in a hazard was first introduced into the Rules about 1950-- Prior to that a ball could be lifted for ID from a hazard the same as through the green. There was not widespread abuse reported in the days under the prior Rules (which this change reverts to)

A couple of changes in Rule 12-2 (permitting lifting for ID) should address your concerns-- Under the current (old) Rule the player is permitted to lift for ID if he "has reason to believe" a ball is his he may lift through the green-- This is a subjective license to lift-- The new Rule provides that if it is necessary to lift to ID then the right exists-- Rule 12-1 provides a player may touch or bend grass, bushes, twigs, etc to ID his ball--(be careful of loose impediments in hazards however)-

Hence, only if a ball can not be IDed visually, including moving growing things (so long as the ball is not moved) can a player then ask for the right to mark, lift and ID and replace ALL under the watchful eye of his opponent or fellow competitor--

Once the players understand that under the new Rule its not an outright license to lift the ball under guise of ID (and this applies everywhere, not just in hazards) I think you will find few abuses, including much less abuses trhough the green-

[JohnV]

I'm not overly concerned by this rule change.  As Dennis said, the rule was this way prior to 1956.

This makes the rules more consistent and simpler.  That is a good thing in my opinion.  I've had to stop many players who were wanting to lift a ball in a water hazard to see if it was his.

There is the possibility of abuse, but there is that possibility with many rules such as the two that Chris pointed out.  But, I've yet to see a player abuse either of those rules so why should I think they will do so with this one?

As for recreating the lie, I've made players rebury a ball pretty deep in a bunker and then uncover just a tiny bit of it.  Most the time though if it is that deep, they'll choose to take an unplayable anyway.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Your ball with a huge clump of mud on it is just off the green with the mud facing you (you'll have to chip instead of putt).
If you are required to lift your ball under rule 5, 12 or 22 (you are not allowed to clean it in these cases) NOTHING in the rules requires you to even ATTEMPT to put the ball back oriented the same way it was!!!!  While a decision does say you can "tee it up" on the mud clump, you can turn the mud at any other angle and guarrantee yourself clean contact.

Here's another one--you hit a ball in what you think is casual water or GUR.  Mud is all over it.  You want a ruling but there is no official nearby so you invoke rule 3-3 and play a second ball.  A decision specifically allows you to mark the ORIGINAL ball and proceed under  25-1 as you think you should be entitled to.  THEN you can place a second ball where the original lay and play it.  Guess what--under 25-1 you can CLEAN the original ball--thus the player gets to hit both shots with a brand new or clean golf ball!!??
See decision 3-3/13 for this exact situation.

Think about the "orientation Rule" a minute-- Even under the original Leith Code the player was entitled to lift his ball under certain circumstances-- Never has there been a rule that required each time you replace a ball that you must orient it precisely the way it was when you lifted it-- In fact that would be a virtually impossible Rule to apply-- The "glob of mud" decision is, in fact, a MORE Stringent requirement imposing a duty to the player that he not use the mud as a tee (never has there been a requirement that if lifted he must keep the mud in the same direction)--

Re the 3-3 requirement, Ken Venturi would agree with you, but virtually no one else-- (he accused Arnie of "cheating" at the Masters when Arnie involved the then equivilent Rule 3-3 and played the first ball to completiton and came back to play the ball which Arnie was sure he could take relief for)-- The problem is that if the player is in doubt he is not sure which ball will become his ball in play and this, of course, effects the order of play-- Since its impossible to determine the order the Rule can not specify which order the two balls will be played--
That concept has been with us for at least 60 years--

I do applaud the Ruling Bodies for putting a much more objective standard in place as to when a player can lift--the changes to 12-2 are just one example-

[Jim Nugent]

Chris, how do you feel about lift and clean rules on tour?  Are they ever justified?  

[Doug Siebert]

I could see some abuse in club matches, but does anyone seriously believe this would be abused on tour?  Is Tiger or Vijay really going to try to claim that because he didn't see his ball dive into that front bunker and bury under the lip and somehow no one in the gallery on with the TV crew saw it either that he needs to lift and identify it, in case some other pro left a ball half buried in the bunker?

I do remember a story about Hagen (I think it was either Tommy Armour or Hogan who wrote about the incident) where during a close match Hagen hit a shot that plugged in wet ground when it was raining a bit.  Hagen made a big show of spending at least 5 minutes holding his ball at eye level and studying it from every angle before replacing it exactly where he found it.  By which time the hole it left had softened due to the rain to where he had a much easier shot -- this was well before the whole lift, clean and place abomination, of course.  But then, that was Walter Hagen, he was one of kind!

[Chris Cupit]

Dennis,

I realize how the rules have changed throughout time (I have read my "Rules of the Game" book cover to cover)  I understand forcing a player to orient his ball the way it was exactly is impossible and an undue burden, BUT we certainly expect players to re-create lies in other situations and  make from time to time their best educated guesses as to a number of things without expecting certainty.

Fundamental to the notion of playing the game fairly at least in the last 50 years is the notion that you play the course as you find it and the ball as it lies.  Every attempt should be made to avoid touching a ball in play in my view.  Given manufacturers marks, player's markings and the glob of mud itself, I don't think it's too much to ask a golfer to do his best to re-create the lie he had before lifting his ball.

As to the Arnold palmer situation I am going out on a limb a bit because I do not know exactly how rule 3-3 (or whatever rule it was then) read in 1960.  The current rule requires the player after a doubtful situation has arisen and BEFORE taking any further action (e.g. hitting a shot) to clearly invoke rule 3-3, announce which ball he would like to count if the rules allow......

I thought Venturi described a situation where Palmer played the original ball as it lay, seemed unhappy with the shot and THEN invoked 3-3 and played a second shot which he wished to count.  IF that's what happened that is clearly not allowed in todays rules but I am not positive that is the way the rule read back then.

The "loophole" i see today in 3-3 is only possible if a player properly invokes rule 3-3 and then is smart enough to realize that he now may have an opportunity to clean what was his ball in play in a case where he would almost not be allowed to do so without invoking 3-3.

But of all the majors The Masters has a history of being the least professionally officiated--many honorary officials who have no business being there as "rules officials".  How many people really think when Ernie Els' tee shot on #11 landed just this side of Aiken in that pile of limbs left of #11 that Augusta had really "piled them for removal"??  Not to be too harsh as all of us who have officiated have gotten screwed up and messed up a ruling before but that was a mistake.

Jim,

Without trying to sound overly dogmatic I just don't think lift, clean and place is golf.  I understand weather situations and the need to finish at all costs due to big money considerations in certain events but it's simply not the same game.  I a tour event resorted to that, I think an asterisk should be placed beside the results.  I can't imagine the USGA EVER conducting a championship under those "rules".

To be really ridiculous I would favor:
1.  No touching your golf ball (EVER) without penalty.  
2.  Yeah that means even on the green no marking and cleaning the damn ball--the game is already too damn slow.  I'd let you put with the flagstick in as well--used to do it years ago  
3.  No relief from cart paths, GUR, obstructions...!!  If you don't want to hit it, take an unplayable and then you can fondle it all you want!

[TEPaul]

Dennis Harwood said:

"Philippe--
The prohibition concerning lifting a ball for identification being prohibited in a hazard was first introduced into the Rules about 1950-- Prior to that a ball could be lifted for ID from a hazard the same as through the green. There was not widespread abuse reported in the days under the prior Rules (which this change reverts to)."

Dennis:

So far as I can tell (and on some investigation of the Rules prior to 1950) a player has always been prohibited under the Rules from lifting his ball in a hazard for identification purposes. The Rules change for '08 is the first time in the Rules of Golf this will not be a prohibition (again, so far as I can see).

Back before 1950 the Rules of Golf were arranged quite differently than they were after 1950 and are now but if you go back and look at the way the various Rules refer to this particular situation you will notice how the Rules never allowed a player (in match or stroke play) to lift his ball for identification purposes when it is in a hazard. What the Rules apparently did allow back then is that a player could remove enough in a hazard for a player to see "the" ball (presumably meaning "a" ball and not necessarily "his" ball).

The early Rules also show how the Rules of Golf contemplated the ability of an opponent to protect his own interests against his opponent since he was there to observe his opponent and made some allowances for that in this particular situation.

On the other hand, this particular type of situation was handled somewhat differently in the Rules under Stroke play.

Again, you will also notice, and assuming the wording in the Rules of Golf was as "word specific" as it is now that under the applicable pre-1950 Rule the wording is "the" ball and not "his" ball (the player's ball).

I assume this was most intentional on the part of the Rulesmakers and it was also the logic of why a player was not necessarily penalized for playing a "wrong" ball from a hazard.

The reason I believe all this to be true is because the Rules of Golf have always been very protective of the lie of the ball in golf and have resisted grudgingly a player's ability to put his hands on it and move it (for identification purposes or any other reasons).

Frankly, in my opinion, this was the very reason it took so long to eventually remove the stymie from the Rules of Golf. The stymie was originally simply a byproduct of the fact that one of the two great principles of golf was that the player put his ball in play on the teeing ground and he did not touch it until he removed it from the hole.

Over time various contingencies and seeming necessities began to erode that fundamental principle of golf thereby precipitating the Rules of Golf to allow times and situations where a player may mark and lift his ball in play.

Again, I do not believe the Rules of Golf have ever allowed a player to lift his ball in play and in a hazard for the purpose of identifying it as they are about to do in the 2008 Rules of Golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Cupit,

I'm with you.

Noone is going to recreate a lie worse than they had.
Most will create, advertantly or inadvertantly, a better lie than they had.

For those stating that the rules permitted this 50+ years ago, I say that golfers were different 50+ years ago, AND, I think TEPaul has it right.

Contexting the issue in terms of the PGA Tour is burying your head in the sand and avoiding the realities of everyday play.

If these are the rules, than that's what we have to play by, but, I think they're off base on this one.

Anytime you give the golfer the option of touching a ball in play, you exponentially increase the chances of liberal interpretations of the rule and imprecise execution of the rule.

[Adam Clayman]

Fiddeling with the rules (to this extent) has to be in the long run, bad for the sport, and therefore, imo, a poor decision.

So many people question rules calling them stupid and the like. When you go and change them, it gives credence to those who whined.

It does discourages the "regular guy" who tries to learn and play by the rules because without staying on top of all the changes, year after year (Hasn't there been alot recently?) there's a disconnect from the sport he once knew.

 Not everyone wants to be a "rule guy" and with all the changes they are becomming less and less.

[Jim Sweeney]

This change (and the others that are coming in 2008) has been in debate in the rules committee for more than  four years- it was proposed for 2004 but deferred. In other words, it has been thoroughly researched and debated by staff and committee members and noone will make an argument here that has not been considered by the rules committees of both the USGA and R&A, with input from the tours, the PGA, and the golf associations. Of course there will be people who disagree- there always will be. C'est le vie.

Have past rules changes been reversed after the fact? Of course, maybe half a dozen times in the last 113 years. Might that happen in the case? Possibly. That doesn't mean that the rules committees have acted irrisponsibally.

You and I  and all golfers have a choice every time we tee it up t play by the rules, or not to. The people who will take advantage of the rule change are the same people who will take undue advantage of the rules anyway. No rule change is going to turn an honest golfer into a cheater. So in this regard I disagree with my friend Chris Cupit. But what are friends for?

If you understand the rule, help your fellow golfers abide by them. If they won't, either br OK with it or find someone else to play with.

Look on the bright side: 1) as JvB points out, the rules are now more uniform vis-a-vis ID-ing a ball anywhere on the course. This change might also help speed play since a player will not hit a wrong ball from a hazard and have to return, search for the correct ball, and replay or take relief.

[Chris Cupit]

Jim,

I appreciate that many well intentioned and very sharp people spend a lot of time researching proposed changes.  What I am saying is that now a player competing 100% within the rules has further expanded a "right" that I think is contrary to the spirit of the game--the unnecesarry touching of his ball in play.  I guess we can all agree to disagree but I don't think there was a lot of problem with golfers not being able to touch a ball in a hazard for identification sake.

The other issue is this:  As a player I have always been pretty decent at the rules and if under the 3-3 decision I can play within the rules and gain an advantage by taking relief with the ball in play first and then substitute another ball where the original was, I think that is totally appropriate.  While I think 3-3/13 is a terrible decision I as a player would play "by the rules" and invoke it if it could help me.  Kinda like Milton Friedman arguing against social security in theory but still cashing the checks when the government sends them

Since this "loophole" is "legal" I don't think less of a person for using it any more than I would if they took "advantage" and cleaned their golf ball when lifted as permitted in many cases.  Some people know and use that rule, others haven't a clue.

While many on this site may play by the rules, without a doubt, 99% of the golfing world does not--constantly changing a 1,000 decision rule book every four years seems like some may be too interested in justifying the existence of a committee!  A "Cupit caveat"--committees will always do SOMETHING whether warranted or not  I'd love to vote for the guy that promises to serve on a committee to ensure that NOTHING gets done during his term!!

Maybe the rules committee should be ad hoc and only meet if there is really a groundswell to.....say.....SIMPLIFY the rules.  I am already afraid that people can't keep track of what's out there and certainly have no chance when we keep changing things up on them.  

I support a strong and well respected USGA.  Fundamental to their leadership is the willingness of golfers to listen to what they say re: the rules.  How close are we to a situation where playing strictly by the rules is completely ignored like the 55 MPH speed limit?  If that happens do we really want a USGA that establishes rules for nut cases like me and the .00001% that compete for championships.

Oh well, I support at least another 4 year revision cycle if for no other reason than to try and "fix" some of the 2008 mistakes

[Doug Siebert]

To be really ridiculous I would favor:
1.  No touching your golf ball (EVER) without penalty.  
2.  Yeah that means even on the green no marking and cleaning the damn ball--the game is already too damn slow.  I'd let you put with the flagstick in as well--used to do it years ago  
3.  No relief from cart paths, GUR, obstructions...!!  If you don't want to hit it, take an unplayable and then you can fondle it all you want!

I used to play a skins game with some guys and we played under those rules (except we could take the flag out for putting)  Once you tee up your ball you don't touch it again until you pluck it from the hole, or you are DQed for that hole.  If you hit it OB, lose it, hit it in the water or somewhere unplayable, you are DQed for that hole.  There was no moving of loose impediments like leaves next to your ball or small rocks on the green, either.  There was no fixing of ball marks on the green before putting, we didn't even fix our own until after everyone holed out unless it was clearly not going to come into play before holing out.  You truly had to play the course as you found it!  Even the tiniest violation meant you were out of that hole.

It started as a reaction to one guy who was always claiming relief for casual water or wanting to play lift, clean and place after it rained "because that's what they do on tour", and wanted us to agree to get to take balls out of divots because he thought it was unfair if you ended up in a divot that some idiot should have fixed.  He'd take stances when in the trees that would be holding limbs back, press down the grass behind his ball when in the rough, tapped down spike marks in his line without regret and I'd be willing to bet $1000 he uses the "cheater line" today, wherever he is.

The only disagreement we had when we agreed on this plan was whether to allow marking the ball on the green when you were in someone else's line, but we decided that should be part of the strategy to allow the guys who were behind to gang up on the guy who looked to win the skin, like stymies back in the old days.  It could get dicey in a foursome if you were ahead of all three guys and they all tried to put their ball in your way!  But it really made you think, and ganging up wasn't always smart if you were in second place on the hole because you were in the driver's seat if the leader hit one of the other balls and was DQed from the hole.  We decided to ban the use of any club other than a putter on the greens so we wouldn't get the pro mad at us for putting divots in the green trying to wedge over someone's ball!

It actually really helped my imagination when putting because aside from a straight in putt (which my home course doesn't have many of) you can usually find a way around a ball in your way by varying your line and speed as appropriate, and it is a pretty good visual aid to have a ball sitting there that you know you have to miss but you know you need to come as close as you can to it.  I experimented a bit with trying to deliberately put sidespin on the ball when putting but wasn't able to make that work, apparently I'm only good at that when the ball is in the air

[TEPaul]

The discussion on this new rule change for '08 of being allowed to lift and identify a golf ball in a hazard really is another example of the differing opinions of the old purist mentality of not increasing the ways golfers can get their hands on the golf ball versus those who are looking for more progressive ways of apparently unifying and standardizing a particular procedure in golf---in this case the right to identify one's golf ball before striking it.

I don't really know how to classify my own philosophy on the Rules in this context. I can understand the idea of wanting to unify or standardize a procedure such as this to create greater simplicity but I think I side with those on here who maintain that allowing this procedure in a hazard is just another example of too much of an erosion of one of the fundamental principles of golf----eg the sanctity of the lie protected by the fundamental principle in golf that one does not touch or move one's golf ball between putting it in play on the tee and removing it from the hole. One of the contributors on here mentioned that he felt the way the Rules treated this in a hazard seemed to be working well enough all these years so why change it? I’d say I agree with that.

I think Adam Clayman gave a fine account of how too many rules changes end up just confusing golfers. On the other hand, I think Jim Sweeney made a good post on how any of us should just learn to play by the Rules as we understand them and stop trying to make everything about them logical in our own minds. One of the fascinations of the Rules of Golf is that they are traditional borne from some pretty unique things to do with the game that never were supposed to be all that logical, particularly in unique situations.

On the latter point some of the old Rulesmakers used to say 'the Rules of Golf do need to attempt to deal with the exceptional' and that too many angles dancing on the head of a pin is not good for golf in a Rules context. But now perhaps there are too many Rulesmakers dancing on the head of a pin.

Chris Cupit has an interesting take on all this that really is purist. Chris, do you realize that your sentiment that the Rulesmakers should always just stick with what is and always has been in the Rules of Golf and with Decisions really does almost exactly mimic C.B. Macdonald’s sentiments?

Macdonald felt when it came to Rules and an association (in this case the R&A and USGA) that the success of the association was indicated by how FEW questions they got on Rules matters?

[TEPaul]

Although I'm fairly certain this Rule change to allow a player to lift and identify his ball in a hazard would've been the primary topic of conversation anyway there was another Rule change that had been heading down the pipeline in the last four years and was scheduled to be enacted in Jan. '08 too.

That was the inclusion in the Unplayable Ball Rule of the option of "regression".

I'd wager there may not be 100 people on this website who really understand the "regression" option which exists in the Water Hazard Rule or are even aware of it much less how to apply it.

It can get pretty complicated for even Rules Officials to walk through the procedure with competitors (generally since most Rules Officials arrive late on the scene and aren't that aware of exactly what transpired anway).

But I think the "regression" option makes sense in the Unplayable Ball Rule because although it may be pretty rare it does happen when a player gets himself trapped and to "get out of jail", as it were, needs to take multiple two club length drops each with penalty. The "regression" option in the Unplayable Ball Rule would alleviate that rare but unfortunate circumstance.

Apparently the penalty for "regression" in the Unplayable Ball Rule was slated to be two strokes, and I guess that fits fine with Richard Tuft's ("The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf) basic principle that "The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player would derive from the particular RULE violation."

We had a talk on it about a month ago and I still can't figure out the exact reason it got pulled at the last minute on the way to the '08 changes.

The guy who was speaking to us mentioned why it got pulled. I didn't understand why it got pulled then and so I called him back and asked him again. He explained it to me a second time and I still don't completely get it.

I guess I'm just stupid or a pretty poor listener.  

[Dave_Miller]

I'm not overly concerned by this rule change.  As Dennis said, the rule was this way prior to 1956.

This makes the rules more consistent and simpler.  That is a good thing in my opinion.  I've had to stop many players who were wanting to lift a ball in a water hazard to see if it was his.

There is the possibility of abuse, but there is that possibility with many rules such as the two that Chris pointed out.  But, I've yet to see a player abuse either of those rules so why should I think they will do so with this one?

As for recreating the lie, I've made players rebury a ball pretty deep in a bunker and then uncover just a tiny bit of it.  Most the time though if it is that deep, they'll choose to take an unplayable anyway.

As a Rules Official I agree with Dennis and John.  I think the possibility for abuse is very minor and I have never witnessed a player trying to gain an advantage by lifting his ball under the situations described above.

This should make things simpler.

Fairways and Greens and then you don't have to worry about it.

Dave

[Dave_Miller]

Although I'm fairly certain this Rule change to allow a player to lift and identify his ball in a hazard would've been the primary topic of conversation anyway there was another Rule change that had been heading down the pipeline in the last four years and was scheduled to be enacted in Jan. '08 too.

That was the inclusion in the Unplayable Ball Rule of the option of "regression".

I'd wager there may not be 100 people on this website who really understand the "regression" option which exists in the Water Hazard Rule or are even aware of it much less how to apply it.

It can get pretty complicated for even Rules Officials to walk through the procedure with competitors (generally since most Rules Officials arrive late on the scene and aren't that aware of exactly what transpired anway).

But I think the "regression" option makes sense in the Unplayable Ball Rule because although it may be pretty rare it does happen when a player gets himself trapped and to "get out of jail", as it were, needs to take multiple two club length drops each with penalty. The "regression" option in the Unplayable Ball Rule would alleviate that rare but unfortunate circumstance.

Apparently the penalty for "regression" in the Unplayable Ball Rule was slated to be two strokes, and I guess that fits fine with Richard Tuft's ("The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf) basic principle that "The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player would derive from the particular RULE violation."

We had a talk on it about a month ago and I still can't figure out the exact reason it got pulled at the last minute on the way to the '08 changes.

The guy who was speaking to us mentioned why it got pulled. I didn't understand why it got pulled then and so I called him back and asked him again. He explained it to me a second time and I still don't completely get it.

I guess I'm just stupid or a pretty poor listener.  

Tommy:
I was also expecting to see the change you describe to Rule 28 and was surprised when it did not happen.  

Does anyone know why this change did not happen?

Best
Dave

[Jim Sweeney]

Chris:

I know you know how the rules of golf are promulgated. I also know you respect the USGA and the R&A and the important roles they play. There are too many people, however, that still belive that then rules are made in smoke filled rooms by old white guys with noses bulbose from too much scotch. They believe that because, despite the obvious, the golf press promotes that stereotype. Consider the topic of this thread. A 'suspicious" change? What does that mean, exactly?


TP and Dave:

Maybe Chris can elaborate more on the regression question.

Personally, a regression procedure for a ball droped under 28 that wids up back in the same unplayable position seems like a good idea.

I would assume that that change was omitted this year for one of two reasons- lack of evidence that there is a problem sufficient enough to require a change, or the USGA and R&A are not completely in tune on this issue yet. My bet would be on the latter.

[Chris Cupit]

Jim,

I absolutely beleive that the vast majority (99%) who volunteer for the USGA and R&A do so out of an absolute selfless sense of love and volunteerism for this great game.

Of course there are mistakes but they are not the result of some diabolical plan to "screw" the game of golf!

If the title of "Suspicious" was meant to describe the process of the rules changes then I think it is off base.  The procedure is very open and allows for ANYONE to submit a reccomendation to either the R&A or USGA and let it begin the process of working its way up the various committees.  Most change is slow but there is no hiddden secretive rules cabal!

I really am not sure what was meant by suspicious.  

Anyway, I love the game and both oprganizations.  I want them to be respected by all golfers and I just worry that changing the rules of the game every 4 years is too much.  I do think committees (and the Rules of Golf Committee is no different) need to be in more preservation versus activist mode.

I'd love for the RoGolf committee to quit changing the rules that 90% plus of golfers don't come close to fully understanding anyway and re-focus their attention to an issue that afeects all golfers--the issue of clubs and balls.   Oh well...

I'll look into the regression issue a little more but I am certain that part of the reason for the difference lies in the fact that central to water hazard relief is the option of keeping the point the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard between you and the hole.  When a ball played from a hazard stays in the same hazard without exiting, this point simply does not exist without regressing.

At times a player hitting a shot from a hazard that stays in the hazard can not use 20-5 where it would be of any help. Thus, he is "trapped" in a hazard ad infinitum with literally no hope of escape--Sisyphus in hazard hell

With a ball lying through the green I am guessing that the rules feel enough options are given to a player to help avoid the "hopeless situation" that can occur in the hazard.  Remember a player can deem a ball unplayable ANYWHERE on the course except in a water hazard.  Prior to making a decision a player must be very careful of the consequences of him making his situation worse through an additional errant stroke.

Also, I have another theory:  With water hazards (watery filth and the like) golfers always had the chance to pull their balls out of under penalty and continue play since hitting a ball while it is under water is impossible.  Thus, the game was "generous" in helping you get out of an impossible water situation.

With a ball lying through the green after a stroke, maybe the lack of regression is a vestige of simply playing the ball as it lies on the course?  the notion that the ball is dry and on the course so "good luck and have at it"!

 

[JohnV]

Tommy:
I was also expecting to see the change you describe to Rule 28 and was surprised when it did not happen.  

Does anyone know why this change did not happen?

Best
Dave

As I understand it there were some issues raised with it towards the end of the discussions and so it was tabled.  If the issues can be resolved, it might come back in 2012.  If not ...

I don't know what the issues were and I'm not sure I'm smart enough to take a guess.

[Sam Morrow]

I don't like this particular change, I think there are other rules that needed to be changed much more than this one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()