TEPaul writes:
Non-water hazards? I'm sure you know that under the definitions in the Rules of Golf what is considered to be a "Water Hazard" does not necessarily have to have water in it. The only other type of "hazard" in the Rules of Golf that does not have water in it and is not considered to be a "Water Hazard" is called a "Bunker." I know. It isn't my rule change. I think that is one of the many problems with the proposal. Do you treat all hazards that same, or under this new rule do you need to differentiate between a wet and dry hazard? if you are a bad bunker player, wouldn't you just try hitting over that bunker again so as to not have to hit out of the bunker?
It will also give players a choice between two balls. If you hit into a hazard, you go ahead and hit a provisional. I assume the golfer will be the one to decide if he will play the ball from the hazard or not. So now he can pick one of the balls, the one with the poor lie in the hazard, or the one sitting on the green with a one-shot penalty. The penalty is too cheap, giving golfers often an easy decision.
In another post, TEPaul writes:
The apparent willingness of everyone to play under the very same rules or principlesThe majority of golfers are not playing under the USGA or R&A rules. Many I have played with on public golfers don't have any idea about the rules or if they do they generally rely on what they have heard -- often times wrong. The ones that come close to trying to play by the rules still tend to modify the rules to work within their game.
Cheers,
Dan King
Dream golf is simply golf played on another course. We chip from glass tables onto moving stairways; we swing in a straightjacket, through masses of cobweb, and awaken not with any sense of unjust hazard but only with a regret that the round can never be completed, and that one of our phantasmal companions has kept the scorecard.
--John Updike