# Unplayable lie. Is it acceptable or frowned upon?



## Jay Gee (Jun 8, 2013)

I played yesterday to try and get my 3rd card in for handicap before playing my 1st medal tomorrow. I've not been playing long, broke 100 for the first time (just) and will likely just get a 28 handicap. My playing partners were off 8 and scratch.

I found myself in some very long, deep rough, with some debris and twigs around the ball. I asked if I could take an unplayable lie and the 8 handicapper said sure, whilst the scratch player grimaced. I didn't dwell on it too much and took the penalty and relief.

Later in the round, I found myself in a similar if not worse position. Bearing in mind the scratch players reaction earlier, I asked him whether declaring an unplayable lie was bad form and he said it was. So I played the ball as it lay and just managed to get it out, but my stroke was bordering on an illegal scoop due to a very limited backswing.

My question is, if I find myself in similar circumstances tomorrow and bearing in mind my ability, would it be acceptable to declare an unplayable lie?


----------



## fundy (Jun 8, 2013)

Perfectly acceptable and actually a very sensible option sometimes. Dont know why the scratch player is turning his nose up, if its the best option within the rules then go ahead without worrying what narrow minded people like him think. If anything he should be commending you for knowing that you can drop for an unplayable lie and having decent course management to do so


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 8, 2013)

It's entirely your call to take an unplayable or not. You could do it with your ball sitting nicely in the middle of a fairway, if you so chose.


----------



## hovis (Jun 8, 2013)

You can take an unplayable ball in the middle of the green if you want.  Dont know what his problem was. its not like its for free, it cost's you a shot


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Jun 8, 2013)

Absolutley, the scratch player is talking out his jacksy.


----------



## chrisd (Jun 8, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			I played yesterday to try and get my 3rd card in for handicap before playing my 1st medal tomorrow. I've not been playing long, broke 100 for the first time (just) and will likely just get a 28 handicap. My playing partners were off 8 and scratch.

I found myself in some very long, deep rough, with some debris and twigs around the ball. I asked if I could take an unplayable lie and the 8 handicapper said sure, whilst the scratch player grimaced. I didn't dwell on it too much and took the penalty and relief.

Later in the round, I found myself in a similar if not worse position. Bearing in mind the scratch players reaction earlier, I asked him whether declaring an unplayable lie was bad form and he said it was. So I played the ball as it lay and just managed to get it out, but my stroke was bordering on an illegal scoop due to a very limited backswing.

My question is, if I find myself in similar circumstances tomorrow and bearing in mind my ability, would it be acceptable to declare an unplayable lie?
		
Click to expand...

You are entitled to declare your ball unplayable whenever you like, it isn't any business of anyone else and is definitely not bad form. You could even do it on the putting green if you choose (I can't see why you would though) 

So you don't play an unplayable, duff it trying to move the ball and now your stuffed as you can't use the option of playing from your last place? Some low handicappers can be knobs!


----------



## CMAC (Jun 8, 2013)

as above- did the scratch player know an unplayable lie is a 1 shot penalty? maybe he doesnt and maybe he might not be off scratch if he knew the rules properly- just sayin!


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 8, 2013)

Thanks everyone, I wasn't sure it would be that clear cut hence the poll. I must admit that I thought it a bit odd. Even if it's considered bad form in his circle of players, I'm a high handicapper playing within the rules.

I also remember a thread where someone took a putter to demonstrate that his stance was impeded to get free relief even though they would never select that club otherwise. Different circumstances altogether,  but it's hard enough for us beginners to learn all the rules and decisions sometimes.

At least I know it's a fair option for the medal tomorrow. Thanks forum.


----------



## philly169 (Jun 8, 2013)

theres a number of times i can remember that i should have called an unplayable.... lol 

as others have said, a very sensible option.. you'll find as you play more and get better those kinds of shots will be easier and not as daunting, remember its your own game and if someone frowns upon it thats their problem, so dont worry about it.


----------



## Val (Jun 8, 2013)

You can call an unplayable lie wherever you like, people can frown all they like, the rules are the rules


----------



## bobmac (Jun 8, 2013)

I suspect the guy off scratch probably has more shots available to him than your good self so what may look unplayable to you my be perfectly playable to him.
If you dont think you can play it as it lies, call it unplayable


----------



## ScienceBoy (Jun 8, 2013)

My first rule when unsure is always play the ball as it lies, however if your just going to get yourself in a dreadful mess trying to get out of somewhere then just pop a tee in the ground to mark your old spot before going after the first.

I used this in an medal once, pushed a second shot into deep rough behind a row of trees. Chances were if I found it I was not getting out unless I played backwards. I just dropped another in the middle, found the green and walked off only the one shot penalty worse.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jun 8, 2013)

If its good enough for the pro's to take the odd unplayable then why not a club golfer. It is about getting it round in as few as possible and a drop and penalty as opposed to taking three of four to chop it out makes total sense


----------



## rickg (Jun 8, 2013)

Scratch player was an absolute cock......even more so that it influenced your decision later on.....he should be ashamed of himself...


----------



## Iaing (Jun 8, 2013)

The scratch player was probably just a handicap snob who was pissed about having to play with a high 'capper.


----------



## rosecott (Jun 8, 2013)

The key questions are:

What is the best result I can achieve if I play the ball as it lies?

What is the worst result if I play the ball as it lies?

If the answer to the first question is not moving the ball very far and the answer to the second is hardly moving at all, there is only one course of action. - declare it unplayable and take a drop.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 8, 2013)

Well done on uniting the forum JG..... Never seen such a one-sided poll. Try something about Westwood next......


----------



## rickg (Jun 8, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well done on uniting the forum JG..... Never seen such a one-sided poll.
		
Click to expand...

Bomber hasn't vote yet!! :rofl:


----------



## Andy808 (Jun 8, 2013)

I had two that I could have called unplayable today but the line back would have had me OOB before I found anything better so I was forced to play them as they were. 
On a similar note we had a discussion at the club house about calling a ball "lost". 
It all came about when one of our senior members said that someone got DQ'ed from a comp for not playing a provisional ball. I said you can't be DQ'ed for not playing a provisional and that he had to have played the wrong ball afterwards and not corrected his mistake before the next tee. To say a heated discussion ensued is an understatement to the point the secretary, who was listening, said I had to be wrong as the other member had been playing for years so MUST know the rules better than me. 
I tried, to no avail, that if he had declared the first ball "lost" then played a second then his first ball, whether found or not, is no longer in play. IF he had declared the second ball a provisional then the first ball would have been back in play when found without penalty. I also said that a ball can be declared "lost" at any time, even if it's in the middle of the fairway. This again was disputed by the senior member and the secretary. 

Sometimes it's not how long you've been playing but how well you have read and understand the rules that is important. I spend a lot of time reading the rule book, it's very therapeutic for helping me get off to sleep, and I think it's important to know the rules as well as you can for what ever game you play.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 8, 2013)

You can call a ball unplayable at any time and it is your decision.  You then have three options with a one shot penalty:

Replay the ball from where it was last hit with a one shot penalty.

Play the ball from two clubs lengths from the point it lies.  No nearer the pin.

Play the ball on a line between where it lies an the pin, at any distance back, no nearer the pin.

I am not clear if you play the ball back at the teeing area if you can re-tee the ball.    Maybe someone can clarify this point.


----------



## Crow (Jun 8, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			I also said that a ball can be declared "lost" at any time, even if it's in the middle of the fairway. This again was disputed by the senior member and the secretary.
		
Click to expand...

Not actually true, you can't "declare" a ball lost at any time, even if you can't see it.

If you say the ball is lost and go back to play under penalty of stroke and disctance, if someone then finds your ball within the time limit and before you've put another ball into play then you must proceed with the original ball.

But that's not to stop you then declaring your original ball once found unpalyable and going back to play under penalty of stroke and distance.


----------



## Andy808 (Jun 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			You can call a ball unplayable at any time and it is your decision.  You then have three options with a one shot penalty:

Replay the ball from where it was last hit with a one shot penalty.

Play the ball from two clubs lengths from the point it lies.  No nearer the pin.

Play the ball on a line between where it lies an the pin, at any distance back, no nearer the pin.

I am not clear if you play the ball back at the teeing area if you can re-tee the ball.    Maybe someone can clarify this point.
		
Click to expand...

As some clubs demand that you use a tee peg on the teeing area I would say that you could.


----------



## Crow (Jun 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I am not clear if you play the ball back at the teeing area if you can re-tee the ball.    Maybe someone can clarify this point.
		
Click to expand...

As long as the shot from the teeing area was a "teed" shot, for example if your first shot had knocked the ball off the tee but it was still on the teeing area and your second put you into an unplayable lie, then you could go back to the teeing area but couldn't tee the ball up.


----------



## Andy808 (Jun 8, 2013)

Crow said:



			Not actually true, you can't "declare" a ball lost at any time, even if you can't see it.

If you say the ball is lost and go back to play under penalty of stroke and disctance, if someone then finds your ball within the time limit and before you've put another ball into play then you must proceed with the original ball.

But that's not to stop you then declaring your original ball once found unpalyable and going back to play under penalty of stroke and distance. 

Click to expand...


But if you hit a second ball with penalty of stroke and distance without declaring a provisional ball then the first ball is declared lost and out of play whether the first ball is found or not. 
It could be in the middle of the fairway but it's still "lost" as another ball is in play. If you know a ball is going to be in so much trouble your going to struggle to get onto the fairway for a few shots your not going to go looking for it in the first place and your not going to call a provisional ball either.


----------



## Crow (Jun 8, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			But if you hit a second ball with penalty of stroke and distance without declaring a provisional ball then the first ball is declared lost and out of play whether the first ball is found or not. 
It could be in the middle of the fairway but it's still "lost" as another ball is in play. If you know a ball is going to be in so much trouble your going to struggle to get onto the fairway for a few shots your not going to go looking for it in the first place and your not going to call a provisional ball either.
		
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but that's decalring the ball unplayable or playing under penalty of stroke and distance, the penalty is the same but the ball isn't "lost" according to the rules until the next ball is in play or the 5 minutes has expired.


----------



## MadAdey (Jun 9, 2013)

Makes a change to hear of a high handicapper using a bit of common sense. It does make me laugh when you see people trying to hack balls out from under bushes etc, instead of just taking a drop.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 9, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			On a similar note we had a discussion at the club house about calling a ball "lost". 
It all came about when one of our senior members said that someone got DQ'ed from a comp for not playing a provisional ball. I said you can't be DQ'ed for not playing a provisional and that he had to have played the wrong ball afterwards and not corrected his mistake before the next tee. To say a heated discussion ensued is an understatement to the point the secretary, who was listening, said I had to be wrong as the other member had been playing for years so MUST know the rules better than me. 
I tried, to no avail, that if he had declared the first ball "lost" then played a second then his first ball, whether found or not, is no longer in play. IF he had declared the second ball a provisional then the first ball would have been back in play when found without penalty. I also said that a ball can be declared "lost" at any time, even if it's in the middle of the fairway. This again was disputed by the senior member and the secretary. 

Sometimes it's not how long you've been playing but how well you have read and understand the rules that is important. I spend a lot of time reading the rule book, it's very therapeutic for helping me get off to sleep, and I think it's important to know the rules as well as you can for what ever game you play.
		
Click to expand...

There are a few peculiar pieces of logic in here - and your other one about 'declaring' a ball lost.

Certainly, just because someone has been playing a long time, it doesn't automatically mean they know the rules - in fact it often means the opposite as they are updated every 4 years these days.

There is no such thing these days as 'declaring a ball lost'. That ability was only in the rules from 1956 and removed in 1964. A ball becomes (or is deemed) lost by events - after more than 5 mins searching, after putting another ball into play (there's a few reasons why this might happen and a couple may not involve a penalty) or playing the provisional ball from nearer the hole than the original.

I can imagine some circumstances where a player could be DQ-ed 'because he hadn't played a Provisional'. If he expected to find his ball, so didn't announce and play a Provisional, then couldn't find his ball and couldn't be bothered to return to the tee and play another (his only other option) then any further play would result in a DQ.

As for declaring a 'playable' ball unplayable, it's perfectly reasonable to do so and quite deliberately permitted under the rules. Some folk believe it to be 'against the spirit of the rules' or 'bad form' but that's poppycock imo. The rules state that the player can declare his ball unplayable at any time (apart from when it is in a water hazard, when other rules apply), but there's  penalty for doing it - end of!


----------



## Colin L (Jun 9, 2013)

Crow said:



			As long as the shot from the teeing area was a "teed" shot, for example if your first shot had knocked the ball off the tee but it was still on the teeing area and your second put you into an unplayable lie, then you could go back to the teeing area *but couldn't tee the ball up*.
		
Click to expand...

Think again? 

_*Rule 20-5* 
When a player elects or is required to make his next stroke from where a previous stroke was made, he must proceed as follows:

(a) On the Teeing Ground: The ball to be played must be played from within the teeing ground. It may be played from anywhere within the teeing ground and may be teed ........._


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 9, 2013)

Ach - the scratch golf has clearly had some of his sense scratched out.  I recently putted a fast tricky downhill 6 footer off the green - ended up 30 yds away down a big slope leaving me a horrid shot back.  So deciding I would do very well to get up and down in three, I took stroke and distance and replaced it back on the green from whence I had started and two putted.  Got 'funny' looks and I'm not sure what my PPs actually thought - but hey - did I really care?


----------



## CMAC (Jun 9, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Think again? 

_*Rule 20-5* 
When a player elects or is required to make his next stroke from where a previous stroke was made, he must proceed as follows:

(a) On the Teeing Ground: The ball to be played must be played from within the teeing ground. It may be played from anywhere within the teeing ground and may be teed ........._

Click to expand...

even if it's his 3rd shot or higher and the ball is on the tee area for that hole you are allowed to Tee it up? just clarifying as it's an interesting point


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 9, 2013)

Andy808 said:



			I had two that I could have called unplayable today but the line back would have had me OOB before I found anything better so I was forced to play them as they were. 
On a similar note we had a discussion at the club house about calling a ball "lost". 
It all came about when one of our senior members said that someone got DQ'ed from a comp for not playing a provisional ball. I said you can't be DQ'ed for not playing a provisional and that he had to have played the wrong ball afterwards and not corrected his mistake before the next tee. To say a heated discussion ensued is an understatement to the point the secretary, who was listening, said I had to be wrong as the other member had been playing for years so MUST know the rules better than me. 
I tried, to no avail, that if he had declared the first ball "lost" then played a second then his first ball, whether found or not, is no longer in play. IF he had declared the second ball a provisional then the first ball would have been back in play when found without penalty. I also said that a ball can be declared "lost" at any time, even if it's in the middle of the fairway. This again was disputed by the senior member and the secretary. 

Sometimes it's not how long you've been playing but how well you have read and understand the rules that is important. I spend a lot of time reading the rule book, it's very therapeutic for helping me get off to sleep, and I think it's important to know the rules as well as you can for what ever game you play.
		
Click to expand...

You can NEVER declare a ball lost.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 9, 2013)

guest100718 said:



			You can NEVER declare a ball lost.
		
Click to expand...

but from the middle of the fairway it can be declared unplayable.


----------



## gdc (Jun 9, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			Later in the round, I found myself in a similar if not worse position. Bearing in mind the scratch players reaction earlier, I asked him whether declaring an unplayable lie was bad form and he said it was.
		
Click to expand...

OMG I have seriously never heard such total **** in all my life. 
You can declare an unplayable any time you like and you get the penalty that goes with it. In fact this scratch golfer should be applauding the fact you know your own limits - not many golfers do!


----------



## Ian_S (Jun 9, 2013)

chrisd said:



			So you don't play an unplayable, duff it trying to move the ball and now your stuffed as you can't use the option of playing from your last place? Some low handicappers can be knobs!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just do a quick YouTube for Kevin Na taking 16 on a hole. He tried to hack out when he should have taken unplayable.

Ignore the scratch golfer. Nothing wrong, ever, with declaring it unplayable, even if physically it isn't. Suppose your ball is up against a tree just off the fairway. The only shot you have is chipping out sideways. If two club lengths is enough to get you on the fairway, take an unplayable and drop it on it. No sense risking anything you don't need to.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 9, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			even if it's his 3rd shot or higher and the ball is on the tee area for that hole you are allowed to Tee it up? just clarifying as it's an interesting point
		
Click to expand...

As you see, there's nothing in the rule to limit what number of stroke you are playing.


----------



## stevelev (Jun 9, 2013)

Crow said:



			I know what you're saying but that's decalring the ball unplayable or playing under penalty of stroke and distance, the penalty is the same but the ball isn't "lost" according to the rules until the next ball is in play or the 5 minutes has expired.
		
Click to expand...

As soon as another ball is played the 'lost' ball is just that The ball played is the 'ball in play' the five minutes makes no difference.

27-1/2.3 Original Ball Found Within Five-Minute Search Period After Another Ball Dropped; Original Ball Played: 
In Decision 27-1/2, the player was required to proceed with the dropped ball. What would be the ruling if the player continues play with the original ball?
As the original ball is no longer the playerâ€™s ball in play, it is a wrong ball, and the provisions of Rule 15-3 apply.


----------



## USER1999 (Jun 9, 2013)

MadAdey said:



			Makes a change to hear of a high handicapper using a bit of common sense. It does make me laugh when you see people trying to hack balls out from under bushes etc, instead of just taking a drop.
		
Click to expand...

This is so funny.

I played with a guy in the last medal at my place. He had an un playable, pretty much. He could have dropped under penalty, two club lengths sideways, which gave him a shot to the green. He chose to play out backwards, which wasn't easy, he hit a miracle shot, 45 yards backwards into deep rough. daft isn't the word.


----------



## MadAdey (Jun 10, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			This is so funny.

I played with a guy in the last medal at my place. He had an un playable, pretty much. He could have dropped under penalty, two club lengths sideways, which gave him a shot to the green. He chose to play out backwards, which wasn't easy, he hit a miracle shot, 45 yards backwards into deep rough. daft isn't the word.
		
Click to expand...

I have never understood and never why people are frightened to take a drop when clearly it is the only choice.


----------



## cookelad (Jun 10, 2013)

Colin L said:



			As you see, there's nothing in the rule to limit what number of stroke you are playing.
		
Click to expand...

I read the original question as the player duffs/tops his tee shot a few feet but the ball remains on the teeing ground, the player then proceeds to hit their 2nd shot into a lost ball situation in this case the player wouldn't be allowed to tee their ball up when returning to the spot where the 2nd shot was played to play their 4th shot.

Also in reply to the OP weren't the pro's using the same ruling at one of the Opens a few years back, I can't remember if it was The U.S. or Proper Open.


----------



## Ethan (Jun 10, 2013)

Scratch players _may _know more about the rules, but often don't. Likewise handicap secretaries and club captains. If in doubt, check the rule book in your bag, or the local rules on the card.

What do you mean you don't carry one? You should. 

The player can declare an unplayable anywhere he likes, without giving and reason of justification, and he would be a fool not to do so if it is in his advantage. Sometimes the rules of golf are arbitrary and a bit stupid. Occasionally, they give you a good break. If so, grab it and remember it next time the more usual bad break happens.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Ethan said:



			The player can declare an unplayable anywhere he likes, without giving and reason of justification, and he would be a fool not to do so if it is in his advantage. Sometimes the rules of golf are arbitrary and a bit stupid. Occasionally, they give you a good break. If so, grab it and remember it next time the more usual bad break happens.
		
Click to expand...

Like when you miss a short putt on a wickedly sloping green and your ball ends up in a greenside bunker right against the face.  Just declare it unplayable and replace it from whence it came - back on the green - and add a shot - as as you now know the putt you should be better placed to hole it.


----------



## Wessex (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Like when you miss a short putt on a wickedly sloping green and your ball ends up in a greenside bunker right against the face.  Just declare it unplayable and replace it from whence it came - back on the green - and add a shot - as as you now know the putt you should be better placed to hole it.
		
Click to expand...

A very interesting comment. I've never seen Rule 28 used to this advantage and I wonder just how many have actually used it in this manner or actually knew they could? 

Personally I think the Rule is there to help those whose ball is in a really unplayable position rather than having another go. To me it is not within the spirit of the game but, I will bare it in mind this weekend in our Club Championship should the need arise.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

Wessex said:



			A very interesting comment. I've never seen Rule 28 used to this advantage and I wonder just how many have actually used it in this manner or actually knew they could? 

Personally I think the Rule is there to help those whose ball is in a really unplayable position rather than having another go. To me it is not within the spirit of the game but, I will bare it in mind this weekend in our Club Championship should the need arise. 

Click to expand...

It was one of these that instigated a reasonably heated debate on another forum.

My attitude still applies - it's fine! Wouldn't have been fine if the original 13 rules applied, but they don't. 'Unplayable' first established (in the Rules) 1920 and has always been up to the player to decide (under penalty). Options and use of provisional (now not allowed) have varied, Originally, it was only return to where previous shot played.


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 10, 2013)

Wessex said:



			A very interesting comment. I've never seen Rule 28 used to this advantage and I wonder just how many have actually used it in this manner or actually knew they could? 

Personally I think the Rule is there to help those whose ball is in a really unplayable position rather than having another go. To me it is not within the spirit of the game but, I will bare it in mind this weekend in our Club Championship should the need arise. 

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with using the rules to your advantage.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Wessex said:



			A very interesting comment. I've never seen Rule 28 used to this advantage and I wonder just how many have actually used it in this manner or actually knew they could? 

Personally I think the Rule is there to help those whose ball is in a really unplayable position rather than having another go. To me it is not within the spirit of the game but, I will bare it in mind this weekend in our Club Championship should the need arise. 

Click to expand...

I've used it for my previous example.  Missed a short (less than 2ft) putt on evil fast downhill green with flag at front of green - and ended up 30 yds back down the fairway with a horrible pitch back up to the green (base of flag hidden).  Play too cute and I don't get on green - and back down slope.  Play too firm and past the flag with a longer evil downhill putt than the one I started with.  So I decide that the shot is unplayable and I place my ball back on the green from whence I had come and hole the putt.  So from where I was at bottom of the slope I was essentially 'up and down in two'.  Chance of me actually achieving that any other way? - loooooow.

I did however get funny and quizzical looks from my PPs until I explained.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Missed a short (less than 2ft) putt on evil fast downhill green with flag at front of green - and ended up 30 yds back down the fairway with a horrible pitch back up to the green (base of flag hidden).  Play too cute and I don't get on green - and back down slope.  Play too firm and past the flag with a longer evil downhill putt than the one I started with.  So I decide that the shot is unplayable and I place my ball back on the green from whence I had come and hole the putt.  So from where I was at bottom of the slope I was essentially 'up and down in two'.  Chance of me actually achieving that any other way? - loooooow.
		
Click to expand...

I dont think that should be allowed


----------



## HickoryShaft (Jun 10, 2013)

Really interesting post and thread this.

I must say that despite 'knowing' this rule I would have previously been reluctant to declare an unplayable and have certainly tried several times to recover a ball that I probably had no chance of getting back in play - at times under trees and near roots so risking injury in doing so.

Now having read it I realise that I should have had the balls to declare it unplayable and get on with the drop. I certainly will from now on so thanks to the OP to raising this.


----------



## HickoryShaft (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont think that should be allowed
		
Click to expand...

Bob - 'dont think it should be' or 'isn't' despite the rule suggesting it could be used. Is there another rule that overrides it in this circumstance? - clarify please


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 10, 2013)

HickoryShaft said:



			Bob - 'dont think it should be' or 'isn't' despite the rule suggesting it could be used. Is there another rule that overrides it in this circumstance? - clarify please
		
Click to expand...

Nothing that doesn't allow it, it just doesn't seem "right", although perfectly legal


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont think that should be allowed
		
Click to expand...

I think it was Nicklaus who said many moons ago - I paraphrase - 'know the rules to your advantage'

Plenty of times I've felt very hard done by by the rules - I have no qualms about making use of them to my benefit whenever I can.  Besides - unplayable - too difficult to be played - not impossible.  From where I was down the slope - down in two? - for me to all intents and purposes unplayable.


----------



## HotDogAssassin (Jun 10, 2013)

This thread is the biggest reason that I love the forum.  I'm aware of the unplayable rule but never really seen the opportunity of using to my advantage until now.  There have been MANY situations where I should have used this rule but didn't think of it.  Thanks to all!


----------



## Ethan (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont think that should be allowed
		
Click to expand...

I agree. A green which allows a 2 foot putt to roll 30 yards down a slope should not be allowed.


----------



## Val (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont think that should be allowed
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you should be penalised for a plugged ball in the rough either but thats the rules.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I don't think you should be penalised for a plugged ball in the rough either but thats the rules.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Ethan said:



			I agree. A green which allows a 2 foot putt to roll 30 yards down a slope should not be allowed.
		
Click to expand...

Aye - tell that to the Masters committee


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

HotDogAssassin said:



			This thread is the biggest reason that I love the forum.  I'm aware of the unplayable rule but never really seen the opportunity of using to my advantage until now.  There have been MANY situations where I should have used this rule but didn't think of it.  Thanks to all!
		
Click to expand...

...and don't for to take your plant spotters guide around with you in case you find your ball nestling gently against a cowslip  (only kidding - I think).

I'd rather use the rules to my advantage wherever possible, even in such circumstances that may appear to be 'against the spirit of the game', than bow to the onslaught of techology that *breaks *the rules but can be permitted by LR (but that is another thread and I will not go there) and which use of to me is most certainly 'against the spirit of the game'


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

It is just my opinion.
How can you stand in the middle of a fairway with a perfect lie, a clear, dry stance, a clear swing and claim it unplayable when it clearly is playable. It is not unplayable.
Then drop it 30 yards NEARER the hole when all other drops stipulate the drop MUST NOT BE nearer the hole (dropping zones accepted)

Hit it, find it and hit it again.

If your putting is so bad you knock it off the green from 2 feet away,  you deserve to play the next shot from 30 yards away.
As I said, just my opinion which I believe I'm entitled to.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Aye - tell that to the Masters committee 

Click to expand...

You did it in the Masters!?


----------



## rosecott (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How can you stand in the middle of a fairway with a perfect lie, a clear, dry stance, a clear swing and claim it unplayable when it clearly is playable. It is not unplayable.
		
Click to expand...

The point being that you cannot tell another player if his ball is unplayable or not. He is the sole judge of that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			It is just my opinion.
How can you stand in the middle of a fairway with a perfect lie, a clear, dry stance, a clear swing and claim it unplayable when it clearly is playable. It is not unplayable.
Then drop it 30 yards NEARER the hole when all other drops stipulate the drop MUST NOT BE nearer the hole (dropping zones accepted)

Hit it, find it and hit it again.

If your putting is so bad you knock it off the green from 2 feet away,  you deserve to play the next shot from 30 yards away.
As I said, just my opinion which I believe I'm entitled to. 

Click to expand...

Indeed bob 

But are we not entering difficult water if some things allowable under the rules are deemed by some to be 'against the spirit of the game'.  As it happens when I first learnt of this I thought it was just a bit iffy - but I often say to folk bemoaning their bad luck that 'nobody said golf was supposed to be fair'.  I never really cottoned on to what Jack Nicklaus wrote all these years ago - but I see what he means.  Know the rules and use the rules to your advantage.

I'm sure that if the R&A didn't like it they'd have ruled against it.  Unplayable doesn't necessarily mean just hitting the ball (lie, stance etc) - unplayable can mean that in my opinion I do not feel capable of being able to play the shot to get the outcome I desire with any degree of certainly.

I feel no moral qualms in doing this when others feel no moral qualms about using technology for measuring distance.  Both are aimed at reducing uncertainty around outcome.

btw - I've also chipped on from back of same green and disappeared way down the slope and I have chosen to take stroke and distance as I had sussed out the chip from my poor first effort.  After taking stroke and distance I chipped and got up and down in two.  Could I have got up and down in three from bottom of slope on the fairway?  Possibly - but it is a notoriously tricky pitch back up that I do often muck up.  So where does that leave me morally.  Thin dividing lines and all that


----------



## CMAC (Jun 10, 2013)

I would *never* take an unplayable unless the ball was actually _unplayable_ :thup:

Golf is so unpredictable you never know what could happen, I'm always hoping to hole the next shot


I want my score to be the shots I took or was penalised for, not the ones I added on unnecessarily


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

rosecott said:



			The point being that you cannot tell another player if his ball is unplayable or not. *He is the sole judge of that.*

Click to expand...

Or she if you're being pedantic

I know what the rules is, I just think it's wrong.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 10, 2013)

Bob
A very important feature of the Rules is, I think, that you are never left without some way of proceeding to complete a hole.  The ball unplayable rule is one of those: you are never  in a position where you simply cannot play on because there is no way you can make a shot.  Without it, you could be stuck completely.  How would you word a rule to ensure a player can get out of the impossible shot without it allowing me to putt again from where I previously putted because my ball went into a bunker (which I have done)?


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Or she if you're being pedantic

I know what the rules is, I just think it's wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Imagine if you had a say in what is and isn't unplayable with regards to someones elses ball.

chaos.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			I would *never* take an unplayable unless the ball was actually _unplayable_ :thup:

Golf is so unpredictable you never know what could happen, I'm always hoping to hole the next shot


I want my score to be the shots I took or was penalised for, not the ones I added on unnecessarily 

Click to expand...

Your definiton of unplayable is different from mine though  And in the Definitions section of the Rules there is a yawning gap between *Through the Green* and *Water Hazard*


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Bob
A very important feature of the Rules is, I think, that you are never left without some way of proceeding to complete a hole.  The ball unplayable rule is one of those: you are never  in a position where you simply cannot play on because there is no way you can make a shot.  Without it, you could be stuck completely.  How would you word a rule to ensure a player can get out of the impossible shot without it allowing me to putt again from where I previously putted because my ball went into a bunker (which I have done)?
		
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying and i know why the rule is there, but I still think it's wrong.
You cannot claim a ball is lost even if it's 50yards in the trees, but you can claim it unplayable when it is sitting right in front of you on the fairway.
Perhaps a change to the wording might be appropriate.......
Rule 29.
I'm rubbish at chipping so I'll claim it "*too difficult*" rather than "unplayable"


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I feel no moral qualms in doing this when others feel no moral qualms about using technology for measuring distance.  Both are aimed at reducing uncertainty around outcome.
		
Click to expand...

Well, you raised it so, so I'll answer it.

DMDs are specifically catered or in the Note to 14.3 - allowing Committees to have an LR to allow them - so entirely within The Rules (provided an LR is in place). Definitely not against any rules, nor against the non-existent 'spirit of the rules'.

I keep saying that The Rules are written quite deliberately and mean exactly what they say and no more. If you can't find a Rule that is broken (and there is no relevant Decision) then no breach. I'm certain that part of the delay over the Belly/Broomstick putter issue was getting the wording correct to cover what the (eventually) wanted to do/prevent.

Same applies to SLH's playable unplayable - and a host of other situations where applying a Rule could advantageous!


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I know what the rules is, I just think it's wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Remember that there is a cost to doing so.

And, given the number of other times that the Rules can provide an advantage, this is the lowest common denominator/least bad of the alternatives - which could mean the inability to continue!


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Remember that there is a cost to doing so.

And, given the number of other times that the Rules can provide an advantage, this is the lowest common denominator/least bad of the alternatives - which could mean the inability to continue!
		
Click to expand...

I dont agree.
You just claim it "too difficult"
You have the same options as "unplayable" except you cant go back to the spot you hit your last shot from *if it is nearer the hole* than where your ball has finished.


----------



## CMAC (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*Your definiton of unplayable is different from mine though*  And in the Definitions section of the Rules there is a yawning gap between Through the Green and Water Hazard
		
Click to expand...

only if your definition is "I can see it, I can get a club to it and move it quite easily, but I'm not going to cause I can" 

whats Through the green and Water Hazard got to do with the discussion?


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont agree.
You just claim it "too difficult"
You have the same options as "unplayable" except you cant go back to the spot you hit your last shot from *if it is nearer the hole* than where your ball has finished.
		
Click to expand...

Er. 
1. Try defining the difference between those 2 terms so there is no doubt which is which! You could simply add your bit to the 'Unplayable' rule, but that creates a can of worms too - thining a chip, rom near the pin, into the long grass through the back of a green could be game over!
2. It may or may not cover the ball going through the green and dropping into the bunker dependent on where the hole is. But the playability, or otherwise, of the ball in the bunker is no different!


----------



## wonga (Jun 10, 2013)

If it was good enough for Jason Duffer to call an unplayable lie then what's the problem? The rules are there to be used!


----------



## Region3 (Jun 10, 2013)

You hit your drive into the right rough, and have a tree in the way of a direct shot to the green meaning a 30yd cut is required.

On taking your stance you notice that your right foot is on a rabbit scrape. The scrape doesn't really affect your shot, but under the rules you are entitled to relief which would then give you a clear shot at the green.

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but is this not the same 'spirit of the game' argument?
How many here would play the ball as it lies - if it were an important round?


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

Region3 said:



			You hit your drive into the right rough, and have a tree in the way of a direct shot to the green meaning a 30yd cut is required.

On taking your stance you notice that your right foot is on a rabbit scrape. The scrape doesn't really affect your shot, but under the rules you are entitled to relief which would then give you a clear shot at the green.

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but is this not the same 'spirit of the game' argument?
How many here would play the ball as it lies - if it were an important round?
		
Click to expand...

From the way you have described this, that you are preparing to play your choice of shot and discover the scrape, then fine.

Had you stated that you walked up, saw the scrape, then manufactured a shot option that brought the scrape into play, I would be rather more dubious.

It also depends on how near the tree you are/how stuck behind it you are imo as the relative degree of interference counts.

Oh. For me, a slice would be ok, but a hook would be a bit dodgy too!


----------



## cookelad (Jun 10, 2013)

Region3 said:



			You hit your drive into the right rough, and have a tree in the way of a direct shot to the green meaning a 30yd cut is required.

On taking your stance you notice that your right foot is on a rabbit scrape. The scrape doesn't really affect your shot, but under the rules you are entitled to relief which would then give you a clear shot at the green.

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but is this not the same 'spirit of the game' argument?
How many here would play the ball as it lies - if it were an important round?
		
Click to expand...

Assuming it was a lone rabbit scrape and there was no more scrapings further right, I would probably play it as it lies, as my nearest point of relief would be further to the right meaning I would need to play even more slice to get around the tree!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

hmmm - let's have a heated debate..as Mrs Merton might say.

If I may go back to my post-posting post edit...just to murky the waters a bit more - or indeed stir it a bit more...




			btw - I've also chipped on from back of same green and disappeared way down the slope and I have chosen to take stroke and distance as I had sussed out the chip from my poor first effort. After taking stroke and distance I chipped and got up and down in two. Could I have got up and down in three from bottom of slope on the fairway? Possibly - but it is a notoriously tricky pitch back up that I do often muck up. So where does that leave me morally. Thin dividing lines and all that
		
Click to expand...

I had a perfecet lie on the fairway and a clear, unimpeded swing.  But I chose to play my chip again.  It was further from the hole than my two foot putt - but still closer than 30yds.  Was I 'wrong' to have used the rule and taken stroke and distance by declaring my shot from the fairway unplayable?  If I wasn't 'wrong' then somewhere between that chip and my 2ft putt there is a 'moral' dividing line - oh blimey - morals as well as etiquette in golf - there's trouble brewin'


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

I dont really care if the original ball position is 2 feet or 52 feet, if your ball finishes up further away from where it was played from, you should not be able to drop/place the ball back where it came from as that would be NEARER THE HOLE.
Especially if the ball is clearly playable.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I dont really care if the original ball position is 2 feet or 52 feet, if your ball finishes up further away from where it was played from, you should not be able to drop/place the ball back where it came from as that would be NEARER THE HOLE.
Especially if the ball is clearly playable.
		
Click to expand...

Would that, in a revision of the rule to meet your objections also apply to a shot that rebounds off a tree and ends up 50 yards behind you  and is unplayable?


----------



## CMAC (Jun 10, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Would that, in a revision of the rule to meet your objections also apply to a shot that rebounds off a tree and ends up 50 yards behind you  and is unplayable?
		
Click to expand...

checkmate!


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Would that, in a revision of the rule to meet your objections also apply to a shot that rebounds off a tree and ends up 50 yards behind you  and is unplayable?
		
Click to expand...

2 things
1.the person would not hit a putt into the trees
2 the ball in the OP IS playable.

As I've said before, I know what the rules say I just thinks it's wrong.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Well, you raised it so, so I'll answer it.

DMDs are specifically catered or in the Note to 14.3 - allowing Committees to have an LR to allow them - so entirely within The Rules (provided an LR is in place). Definitely not against any rules, nor against the non-existent 'spirit of the rules'.
		
Click to expand...

Well as the 'spirit of the rules' doesn't exist then may I say that (regardless of what any club may declare in a LR) - DMDs are contrary to my definition of 'the spirit of the game'.  But let's not go there at the moment as I might ask - are - the spirit of the game and - the spirit of the rules - one and the same thing?  Can there be such a thing as 'the spirit of the rules' or should rules be rules or can they be interpreted in 'the spirit of the game'.  I think the former as much as I might like the latter to apply.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			2 things
1.the person would not hit a putt into the trees
2 the ball in the OP IS playable.

As I've said before, I know what the rules say I just thinks it's wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you can make moral judgements about how the rules are interpreted else we get into difficult water.  Well of course you can make such judgements but...

I'm implacably opposed to use of technology for measuring distance - I think the rules are wrong.  But it appears that I am stuck with them being permitted.


----------



## rosecott (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			2 the ball in the OP IS playable.
		
Click to expand...

Sez who?

What you fail to take into account is the huge disparity between your skill level and that of the OP.

That is why the player is the sole arbiter of whether the ball is unplayable.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

rosecott said:



			Sez who?

What you fail to take into account is the huge disparity between your skill level and that of the OP.

That is why the player is the sole arbiter of whether the ball is unplayable.
		
Click to expand...

How can a  ball in the middle of the fairway be unplayable ?


----------



## rosecott (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How can a  ball in the middle of the fairway be unplayable ?
		
Click to expand...

The OP was in "some very long, deep rough".


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2013)

rosecott said:



			The OP was in "some very long, deep rough".
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to post 45 as well you know from your reply no.59.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Basis of what I am saying (other than that the rules allow it) is that just because a ball is 'playable' in that it is 'hittable' - that does not make playable the shot I wish to play.  There are many instances when we declare a ball unplayable because on balance although it is hittable - we can't hit any shot that will do us any good.  And many times I am glad that the rule is not about declariung a ball 'unhittable' 

I incur a penalty shot and it is then up to me whether or not I manage to take advantage of any *potential *advantage the rule gives me.  I could stll have messed up my second attempt at the 2ft putt.  It was still a very fast tricky 2 footer down one nasty slope.  If I hadn't watched my first attempt very carefully I'd have been none the wiser and would probably have stuck it to the bottom of the slope again.  However I *did* watch the putt carefully and I *was *the wiser when I had a second go.


----------



## rosecott (Jun 10, 2013)

bobmac said:



			2 things
1.the person would not hit a putt into the trees
2 the ball in the OP IS playable.

As I've said before, I know what the rules say I just thinks it's wrong.
		
Click to expand...




bobmac said:



			I was referring to post 45 as well you know from your reply no.59.
		
Click to expand...

Crossed wires, I think. I took OP to be the first post in this thread


----------



## Imurg (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm with Bob on this - the wording is wrong.
For a ball to be grammatically "unplayable" it should be just that - you shouldn't be able play it.
If a ball is clearly in the open with nothing to prevent you getting a club to the ball how can it be grammatically Unplayable?

Change the wording.

What to I don't know but the wrong word is used.

And I also think the putting off the green scenario is wrong. Within the rules but still wrong.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Imurg said:



			I'm with Bob on this - the wording is wrong.
For a ball to be grammatically "unplayable" it should be just that - you shouldn't be able play it.
If a ball is clearly in the open with nothing to prevent you getting a club to the ball how can it be grammatically Unplayable?
		
Click to expand...

But then you get into the mire of what is and what isn't playable.  Ballesteros played shots that you or I would deem unplayable.  If my ball is right up against the face of a bunker is it unplayable.  It is certainly hittable - but not in a way that most of us would deem likely to result in a positive outcome.  And the important words for me there are *likely *and *positive*

So I am in the middle of the fairway with a nightmare of a shot having just putted off the green.   My ball is certainly hittable - but not in a way that I would deem likely to result in a positive outcome.  So I declare it unplayable.





			And I also think the putting off the green scenario is wrong. Within the rules but still wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong? - so if I were to play you and I did this, then in your eyes I would be 'cheating' - oh Lord 'cheating' again.   Sorry Imurg - doing what I suggest after putting into a bunker is not at all wrong.  Not one little bit.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			B


Wrong? - so if I were to play you and I did this, then in your eyes I would be 'cheating' - oh Lord 'cheating' again.   Sorry Imurg - doing what I suggest after putting into a bunker is not at all wrong.  Not one little bit.
		
Click to expand...

Read my post....

Within the Rules are words I used.
Who mentioned cheating?
There's many a rule that many people think is wrong - you don't like GPS but it's within the Rules.

Read posts properly or don't read them at all.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But then you get into the mire of what is and what isn't playable.  Ballesteros played shots that you or I would deem unplayable.  If my ball is right up against the face of a bunker is it unplayable.  It is certainly hittable - but not in a way that most of us would deem likely to result in a positive outcome.  And the important words for me there are *likely *and *positive*

So I am in the middle of the fairway with a nightmare of a shot having just putted off the green.   My ball is certainly hittable - but not in a way that I would deem likely to result in a positive outcome.  So I declare it unplayable.
		
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be a positive outcome to a shot?

If your appraoch shot had finished in the place your putt ended up would you declare an unplayable and replay your approach shot?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 10, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Why does there have to be a positive outcome to a shot?

If your appraoch shot had finished in the place your putt ended up would you declare an unplayable and replay your approach shot?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - but if I deliberately do something that someone else thinks is wrong - in my mind he'll be thinking I've cheated eveb although I haven't - and I'd feel bad - and I shouldn't be made to feel bad if I'm doing something that is quite withijhn the rules. - if you wouldn't think I'm stretching the rules to cheating point then great.

And my approach shot quite often ends up where my putt off the green ended up.  And yes - with the flag at the front I would think that it is damn near impossible to get my pitch close - and usually I'd be correct.  

As far as positive outcomes in golf, is that not what we are looking for from *every* shot - and from every drop or opportunity to take relief.  Golf is a game of uncertainty, skill and luck.  With every shot I play I look to play that which has the most likelihood of a successful outcome - and often that will not be the best possible outcome.  I certainly try and avoid negative or worse possible outcomes.  So I am faced with my difficult pitch back to the green, and if the minimum risk option for me is to take stroke and distance from my difficult situation, then I will take it.  Isn't that just playing golf.  Nothing wrong with it in my eyes.  I'm just using my understanding of the rules to reduce uncertainty around the outcome.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 10, 2013)

I'm quite happy to accept that some wouldn't feel happy using a particular rule 'to their advantage' as long as they also don't 'frown on' others who do. That's equivalent to my approach to SLH and his and others use, or not, of DMDs where there's an LR in place.

'Honour, integrity, honesty', which is what R&A use to describe the 'spirit of the game' (which is different from 'spirit of the Rules' in my book) is a personal thing. My attitude to that is that if it is legit in the Rules, then that's fine. There are certain rules/situations where there's an advantage and others that result in possibly too harsh a 'punishment' (imo) but these balance out pretty well and I can see that some rules would be totally impractical to apply without allowing some rare 'advantage' type situations.

I would hope, though, that I would do what Westwood did (simply hitting onto the firway as a recovery) when he returned from a suspended play incident and find his lie had changed from very dodgy to absolutely perfect!


----------



## Imurg (Jun 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - but if I deliberately do something that someone else thinks is wrong - in my mind he'll be thinking I've cheated eveb although I haven't - and I'd feel bad - and I shouldn't be made to feel bad if I'm doing something that is quite withijhn the rules. - if you wouldn't think I'm stretching the rules to cheating point then great.

And my approach shot quite often ends up where my putt off the green ended up.  And yes - with the flag at the front I would think that it is damn near impossible to get my pitch close - and usually I'd be correct.  

As far as positive outcomes in golf, is that not what we are looking for from *every* shot - and from every drop or opportunity to take relief.  Golf is a game of uncertainty, skill and luck.  With every shot I play I look to play that which has the most likelihood of a successful outcome - and often that will not be the best possible outcome.  I certainly try and avoid negative or worse possible outcomes.  So I am faced with my difficult pitch back to the green, and if the minimum risk option for me is to take stroke and distance from my difficult situation, then I will take it.  Isn't that just playing golf.  Nothing wrong with it in my eyes.  I'm just using my understanding of the rules to reduce uncertainty around the outcome.
		
Click to expand...

You feel bad because you think I think you're cheating when you know that I know that you're not........You're like Rory, your head's in the wrong place...

Obviously we all want a positive outcome from every shot, I 'd like every tee shot at a par 3 to go in but Golf ain't like that. There's no guarantee of a positive outcome on a 3 inch putt so why should it be there on a 30 yard pitch, a 150 yard approach or a tght drive on a tricky par 4...?

If you're going to take stroke and distance every time you're faced with a difficult shot you're going to rack up an awful lot of big scores....


----------



## MashieNiblick (Jun 11, 2013)

Interesting thread.

I think I am right in saying that you do not even have to declare a ball unplayable to exercise your option under Rule 27-1a to put another ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (i.e from where you played your last shot) and Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable) merely confirms your right to exercise that option if you think your ball is unplayable.

I see where Bob is coming from in that  in the circumstances he refers to where this would result in the ball being dropped nearer the hole, there is no "distance" element to the penalty. In fact quite the opposite.

To meet Bob's objections you would have to re-write both rules to include an exception that the stroke and distance option cannot be exercised where the last shot was played from nearer the hole. 

I haven't thought through the impications of that in other circumstances. but in relation to the unplayable ball rule that would leave you with the 2 club lengths or drop on a line back from the hole options which I assume Bob would be happier with.

As for "spirit of the Rules" it is specifically referred to in decisions 8-1/26 Player Briefly Changes Caddies for Exchange of Advice and 20-2a/8 Player Drops Ball to Determine Where Original Ball May Roll if Dropped.

"Spirit of the Game" is a separate issue and set out in the Etiquette section and appears in a number of Decisions.


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 11, 2013)

FWIW, I think that stroke and distance should not be an option if it puts you nearer the hole.  However, the rules are clear and apply equally to everyone. Is that not the primary function of rules, to set out the parameters in which the game must be played?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 11, 2013)

...and I'll note that 'distance' in the context of 'stroke and distance' is nothing to do with the 'distance' the ball originally was from the flag - it is to do with distance the ball has travelled as a result of the shot.

As mentioned earlier but lost in the discussion - when I first learnt of what I could do under the rule I was somewhat reticent to take advantage of it.  In truth I think it is very rare that I do, and will in future, actually use it - and as Imurg says - use it a lot in a round and you are probably going to rack up an awful lot of high scores - it's not possible to always take full advantage of the potential advantage offered.  As with so much of golf it a risk/reward judgement call by the player.  Use the rule and fail to take advantage of it and you can look and feel a bit silly.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and I'll note that 'distance' in the context of 'stroke and distance' is nothing to do with the 'distance' the ball originally was from the flag - it is to do with distance the ball has travelled as a result of the shot.

As mentioned earlier but lost in the discussion - when I first learnt of what I could do under the rule I was somewhat reticent to take advantage of it.  In truth I think it is very rare that I do, and will in future, actually use it - and as Imurg says - use it a lot in a round and you are probably going to rack up an awful lot of high scores - it's not possible to always take full advantage of the potential advantage offered.  As with so much of golf it a risk/reward judgement call by the player.  Use the rule and fail to take advantage of it and you can look and feel a bit silly.
		
Click to expand...

My tuppence worth is that what you did was perfectly legal within the rules and is actually, quite a clever thing to do in the circumstances.

However, I do think it is wrong that you should be allowed to do it and even though I know it's allowed, in your situation I don't think I could have done it because I could never in my mind accept that I had won a match or made a score by using that rule to my advantage in that way. If I had made a putt and in ran 30 yds of the green, I'd want to use my golfing ability to try to get out of the situation, anything else would not in my mind be in the "spirit of the game". This is however my thinking and in no way am I suggesting you're a cheat or doing anything wrong, just that I personally couldn't accept it of myself.


----------



## Region3 (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			My tuppence worth is that what you did was perfectly legal within the rules and is actually, quite a clever thing to do in the circumstances.

However, I do think it is wrong that you should be allowed to do it and even though I know it's allowed, in your situation I don't think I could have done it because I could never in my mind accept that I had won a match or made a score by using that rule to my advantage in that way. If I had made a putt and in ran 30 yds of the green, I'd want to use my golfing ability to try to get out of the situation, anything else would not in my mind be in the "spirit of the game". This is however my thinking and in no way am I suggesting you're a cheat or doing anything wrong, just that I personally couldn't accept it of myself.
		
Click to expand...

But you would instantly call a penalty on yourself if you moved a twig and the ball rolled back into a depression in the ground, even though your ball is now in a worse position. So on top of receiving a penalty for no gain, you are actually at a disadvantage.

If things like that were covered in 'equity' so that you were not penalised if you gained no advantage, then I'd agree with not taking advantage of the rules when they could benefit you.
I know that's never going to happen because it's too subjective.

This argument actually reminds me of all the 'old school' pool players that think playing a deliberate foul is cheating.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

Region3 said:



			But you would instantly call a penalty on yourself if you moved a twig and the ball rolled back into a depression in the ground, even though your ball is now in a worse position. So on top of receiving a penalty for no gain, you are actually at a disadvantage.

If things like that were covered in 'equity' so that you were not penalised if you gained no advantage, then I'd agree with not taking advantage of the rules when they could benefit you.
I know that's never going to happen because it's too subjective.

This argument actually reminds me of all the 'old school' pool players that think playing a deliberate foul is cheating.
		
Click to expand...

Of course I would, but I also wouldn't attempt to move the twig if my ball was resting against it as I know I risk a penalty and that would be stupid. 

As I said, I didn't say what SLH did was wrong, against the rules or anything like that and I certainly didn't say he was a cheat, I personally just don't think it would be the right thing for me to do in that situation because I would have trouble accepting it in my own head. If my ball is in knee high clag in a deep hole then fine, I'll take an unplayable. If I putt the ball off the green and it's sitting in the fairway, I'm not going to but that's just me.

There must be a reason why the pro's don't take unplayable lies when they putt off the green at places like Augusta (and it does happen) and that reason must only be that they don't consider it to be in the "spirit of the game", in the rules yes but that is different, everyone has their own interpretation of it and this is mine.


----------



## Wessex (Jun 11, 2013)

Playing Devil's Advocate here, doesn't Rule 1-2 cover this situation?

_.....(ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole?_

It might not be cheating but it is bending the rules and to be honest, your game isn't likely to improve if you are not prepared to master these difficult shots. (The use of the word "you" isn't referring to anyone on here.)


----------



## Wessex (Jun 11, 2013)

Someone asked whether a ball in the middle of a fairway could be deemed unplayable. Well, if it was in a deep divot hole then Rule 28 could be used because playing out of a divot can have very unpredictable results from a thinned shot to a fatted one. Therefore, depending on the ability of the player, declaring a ball unplayable from this lie would be acceptable to me.

Also, when a ball comes to lie on stony ground. Having just spent Â£600 on a new set of irons I am not going to risk damaging them and I would deem the ball unplayable form that lie even though I had a perfect stance to swing unimpeded.

But, to take a shot again because you didn't like the outcome of the previous shot goes against the Spirit of the Game by not playing the ball as it lies.

I'm new to this Forum so I don't want to fall out with anyone over this thread. It certainly got the old grey matter in my head stirring to try to accept that the putting green scenario was fair, but I can't; sorry SLH.


----------



## Region3 (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			There must be a reason why the pro's don't take unplayable lies when they putt off the green at places like Augusta (and it does happen) and that reason must only be that they don't consider it to be in the "spirit of the game"
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely not a cat in hell's chance of a pro not taking the option that gives him the best score on a hole IMO. If they play it as it lies that's because they think it gives them a better chance to score.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			There must be a reason why the pro's don't take unplayable lies when they putt off the green at places like Augusta (and it does happen) and *that reason must only be that they don't consider it to be in the "spirit of the game"*, in the rules yes but that is different, everyone has their own interpretation of it and this is mine.
		
Click to expand...

Wow! That's a huge leap!

I'd be more inclined to think they weigh up their options and figure that the 1 shot penalty makes that option unattractive.

They (with maybe a few exceptions) certainly tend to 'take advantage' of the Rules wherever appropriate/possible. The impression I've got from the several I've spoken to have generally stated that the Rules are there for help as well as for penalties, so use them that way.


----------



## Ethan (Jun 11, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How can a  ball in the middle of the fairway be unplayable ?
		
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by unplayable. If unplayable means that you simply can't strike the ball, that is one thing, but it could also mean that you have no decent chance of hitting it anywhere good. 

The problem with such a rule is that different players of differing skill levels will not agree on what is unplayable. Should unplayable be a ball that Seve couldn't get out of its current position? Or an average 15 handicapper?

The administrators of the game have determined that it must therefore be the player's decision, and the penalty is effectively that of a lost ball. If a player wants to declare a ball in the middle of the fairway with an open shot to the green unplayable, more fool him.


----------



## Region3 (Jun 11, 2013)

Wessex said:



			It might not be cheating but it is bending the rules
		
Click to expand...

How is it? It is following them to the letter.
The rule says that at any time you may under penalty of one stroke replay the previous shot.

What if there's a big water hazard at the front of the green that you putt into instead of it just rolling down the fairway. Do you go all the way round to the other side of the hazard to drop?


----------



## guest100718 (Jun 11, 2013)

Wessex said:



			Someone asked whether a ball in the middle of a fairway could be deemed unplayable. Well, if it was in a deep divot hole then Rule 28 could be used because playing out of a divot can have very unpredictable results from a thinned shot to a fatted one. Therefore, depending on the ability of the player, declaring a ball unplayable from this lie would be acceptable to me.

Also, when a ball comes to lie on stony ground. Having just spent Â£600 on a new set of irons I am not going to risk damaging them and I would deem the ball unplayable form that lie even though I had a perfect stance to swing unimpeded.

*But, to take a shot again because you didn't like the outcome of the previous shot goes against the Spirit of the Game by not playing the ball as it lies.*

I'm new to this Forum so I don't want to fall out with anyone over this thread. It certainly got the old grey matter in my head stirring to try to accept that the putting green scenario was fair, but I can't; sorry SLH.
		
Click to expand...

Its not a mulligan you know.... it still costs a shot.


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 11, 2013)

guest100718 said:



			Its not a mulligan you know.... it still costs a shot.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone who is objecting to taking an unplayable seems to have forgotten this.
There is a cost.


----------



## Matty (Jun 11, 2013)

http://www.randa.org/Rules-and-Amat...ocus/Archive/2010/August/Unplayable-ball.aspx

The above article sums it up perfectly for me. Unplayable ball is totally acceptable - it's a rule of golf for heaven's sake with the endorsement of the R and A. I suspect most amateur golfers should use it more often than they currently do.


----------



## Stuey01 (Jun 11, 2013)

In this putting off the green scenario, do you drop the ball, or place it?
If you drop it, and it rolls off down the hill, do you do the whole drop 3x then place routine? Or are you stuck with where it rolled to?

Interesting debate for sure. Personally I think it sounds like a rubbish green and a worse putt


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How can a  ball in the middle of the fairway be unplayable ?
		
Click to expand...

Bob.

They are not taking an 'Unplayable' (Rule 28)!

They are invoking a different Rule (27 Stroke and Distance) which is also an option in Rule 28 - as it is in several other Rules.
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played.............

Common misnomer (like 'declaring a ball lost') that has been persistent throughout this situation/part of the thread.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

Stuey01 said:



			In this putting off the green scenario, do you drop the ball, or place it?
If you drop it, and it rolls off down the hill, do you do the whole drop *3x* then place routine? Or are you stuck with where it rolled to?

Interesting debate for sure. Personally I think it sounds like a rubbish green and a worse putt 

Click to expand...

Normal rules apply. On the green place; off the green drop. *Only 2 drops then place*.

Slick greens, slopes and wind can cause havoc! US Open would normally see examples, but I suspect not this week!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Wow! That's a huge leap!

*I'd be more inclined to think they weigh up their options and figure that the 1 shot penalty makes that option unattractive.*

They (with maybe a few exceptions) certainly tend So we appear to be saying that your interpretaion of the rules is determined by your ability, which can't be right surely?

Lets say I have my 2nd shot from 100yds and I mishit it into a deep greenside bunker. The ball isn't unplayable in the bunker, but I am not very good at hitting high bunker shots. I evaluate the situation and based on my previous performance in bunkers of this type, I know it is likely to take me at least 3 shots to get out and then will probably take 2 putts so I'll be down in 7. However, I know the shot that got me in the bunker is a rare one and I probably won't do it again so I take an unplayable drop, hit my 4th on the green and 2 putt for a 6. All because I don't consider myself good enough to get out of a bunker...doesn't seem right does it?

I accept that the rules are there to help as well, but they shouldn't be used to overcome lack of ability IMHO. The interpretation of a rule should be the same for everyone, regardless of how good they are. Unfortunately however, that will never be the case as it would be impossible to write them in such a way that they were.

Everyone is entitled to their interpretation and as long as it is withing the rules then they can make whatever decision they like, but some interpretations are more "right" than others.to 'take advantage' of the Rules wherever appropriate/possible. The impression I've got from the several I've spoken to have generally stated that the Rules are there for help as well as for penalties, so use them that way.
		
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone would pick up on that 

So we appear to be saying that your interpretaion of the rules is determined by your ability, which can't be right surely?

Lets say I have my 2nd shot from 100yds and I mishit it into a deep greenside bunker. The ball isn't unplayable in the bunker, but I am not very good at hitting high bunker shots. I evaluate the situation and based on my previous performance in bunkers of this type, I know it is likely to take me at least 3 shots to get out and then will probably take 2 putts so I'll be down in 7. However, I know the shot that got me in the bunker is a rare one and I probably won't do it again so I take an unplayable drop, hit my 4th on the green and 2 putt for a 6. All because I don't consider myself good enough to get out of a bunker...doesn't seem right does it?

I accept that the rules are there to help as well, but they shouldn't be used to overcome lack of ability IMHO. The interpretation of a rule should be the same for everyone, regardless of how good they are. Unfortunately however, that will never be the case as it would be impossible to write them in such a way that they were.

Everyone is entitled to their interpretation and as long as it is withing the rules then they can make whatever decision they like, but some interpretations are more "right" than others.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			So we appear to be saying that your interpretaion of the rules is determined by your ability, which can't be right surely?
		
Click to expand...

Not interpretation of the Rules. But certainly what is 'Unplayable' varies according to ability. Another reason why the Rules are worded perfectly as they are.



HawkeyeMS said:



			Lets say I have my 2nd shot from 100yds and I mishit it into a deep greenside bunker. The ball isn't unplayable in the bunker, but I am not very good at hitting high bunker shots. I evaluate the situation and based on my previous performance in bunkers of this type, I know it is likely to take me at least 3 shots to get out and then will probably take 2 putts so I'll be down in 7. However, I know the shot that got me in the bunker is a rare one and I probably won't do it again *so I take an unplayable drop*, hit my 4th on the green and 2 putt for a 6. All because I don't consider myself good enough to get out of a bunker...doesn't seem right does it?
		
Click to expand...

The bold bit is the misnomer (if that's not one also) I was referring to earlier.

You are actually taking 'Stroke and Distance'! Different Rule (27-1a), but an option in Ball Unplayable (28)!

And your play was a quite reasonable one - though at a cost.

Consider the much more common case of a duffed tee shot into the heather that stretches for 150 yards. There is no question that 3 off the Tee (Stroke and Distance) is a better choice than a further half dozen strokes hacking your way through that stuff. Though if there happens to be a path near where the ball is, then 'taking an unplayable' with a drop to the path could well be another 'good' option. In neither case was the ball truly unplayable, but using the Rules 'to your advantage' is quite legitimate - and regularly done! It is absolutely no different when you are near the hole, though folk's mindset seems to be different!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Not interpretation of the Rules. But certainly what is 'Unplayable' varies according to ability. Another reason why the Rules are worded perfectly as they are.


The bold bit is the misnomer (if that's not one also) I was referring to earlier.

You are actually taking 'Stroke and Distance'! Different Rule (27-1a), but an option in Ball Unplayable (28)!

And your play was a quite reasonable one - though at a cost.

Consider the much more common case of a duffed tee shot into the heather that stretches for 150 yards. There is no question that 3 off the Tee (Stroke and Distance) is a better choice than a further half dozen strokes hacking your way through that stuff. Though if there happens to be a path near where the ball is, then 'taking an unplayable' with a drop to the path could well be another 'good' option. In neither case was the ball truly unplayable, but using the Rules 'to your advantage' is quite legitimate - and regularly done! It is absolutely no different when you are near the hole, though folk's mindset seems to be different!
		
Click to expand...


Actually I was proceeding under rule 28, it's my scenario  but regardless of which rule I used, it still doesn't seem "right" to me


----------



## Region3 (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Lets say I have my 2nd shot from 100yds and I mishit it into a deep greenside bunker. The ball isn't unplayable in the bunker, but I am not very good at hitting high bunker shots. I evaluate the situation and based on my previous performance in bunkers of this type, I know it is likely to take me at least 3 shots to get out and then will probably take 2 putts so I'll be down in 7. However, I know the shot that got me in the bunker is a rare one and I probably won't do it again so I take an unplayable drop, hit my 4th on the green and 2 putt for a 6. All because I don't consider myself good enough to get out of a bunker...doesn't seem right does it?
		
Click to expand...

I know it's not exactly the same, but isn't weighing up the options something we do regularly regardless of whether or not there's a penalty involved?

Remember the flop shot that TW holed last year?
Thick rough, downhill all the way to the hole, with a water hazard past the flag. You or I wouldn't (probably ) dream of opening up a 60deg and taking a full swing because we assess that more often than not we're ending up wet.

Bar a monster putt it's the only way of getting down in 2, but we'd make sure we get on the green away from the water and settle for a 2 putt bogey.

Our choice of shot is being determined by our ability, not by what is the best way to get in the hole quickly. Are we wimping out because we won't back ourselves.

_I'm not trying to start an argument with anybody, but I'm just enjoying the debate. _


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Actually I was proceeding under rule 28, it's my scenario  but regardless of which rule I used, it still doesn't seem "right" to me
		
Click to expand...



But it does solve Bob's 'issue' of the ball sitting perfectly on the fairway being 'unplayable' - if not how to best proceed!

No problem with the choice. Play it as it lies or, at the cost of 1 shot, go back to where last played. The choice is yours.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

Region3 said:



			I know it's not exactly the same, but isn't weighing up the options something we do regularly regardless of whether or not there's a penalty involved?

Remember the flop shot that TW holed last year?
Thick rough, downhill all the way to the hole, with a water hazard past the flag. You or I wouldn't (probably ) dream of opening up a 60deg and taking a full swing because we assess that more often than not we're ending up wet.

Bar a monster putt it's the only way of getting down in 2, but we'd make sure we get on the green away from the water and settle for a 2 putt bogey.

Our choice of shot is being determined by our ability, not by what is the best way to get in the hole quickly. Are we wimping out because we won't back ourselves.

_I'm not trying to start an argument with anybody, but I'm just enjoying the debate. _

Click to expand...

This is all very true, our choice of shot is determined by our ability, but at least we still play a shot. My argument in all this is that you can decide not to play a shot in favour of a different one, even though a shot is perfectly playable.


----------



## Slab (Jun 11, 2013)

Region3 said:



_I'm not trying to start an argument with anybody, but I'm just enjoying the debate. _

Click to expand...

Agree that its a cracking thread and credit to the contributors for keeping it completely civil as I reckon there's a few pages of life left in this one yet...enjoying reading it from the fringe (where I'd certainly consider taking an unplayable from  )


----------



## londonlewis (Jun 11, 2013)

fundy said:



			Perfectly acceptable and actually a very sensible option sometimes. Dont know why the scratch player is turning his nose up, if its the best option within the rules then go ahead without worrying what narrow minded people like him think. If anything he should be commending you for knowing that you can drop for an unplayable lie and having decent course management to do so
		
Click to expand...

Agree, good advice Fundy. 
I wouldn't worry what someone else thinks - just because he is good enough to get out of sticky situation doesn't mean he dictate how much you enjoy your game or the score you end up shooting!


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 11, 2013)

My definition of an unplayable lie- a position where i mistakenly THINK I can hit from , then realise afterwards that i can't .


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

North Mimms said:



			My definition of an unplayable lie- a position where i mistakenly THINK I can hit from , then realise afterwards that i can't .
		
Click to expand...

So anywhere on the course then


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 11, 2013)

Perhaps Rule 28 would be better named 'Player's Prerogative' than 'Ball Unplayable' because there is no stipulation as to what constitutes 'Unplayable'. 
However, the rule states that whilst the player is the sole judge, they must deem the ball unplayable. In using the word unplayable, the rule suggests that you must deem there to be some impedance to playing the ball from where it lies. If a ball clearly lies without any impedance, wouldn't it be against either (or both), the spirit of the game and/or the spirit of the rules to declare it unplayable?

There could be consequences under;
Rule 1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules 
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

Rule 33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion 
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted. Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified. *If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.*

This PDF is interesting, although I'm not sure if it comes directly from the R&A. It gives a number of examples where one can adhere to the rules but violate the spirit of the game or rules. Note that violations of the spirit of the game are dealt with far more harshly than violations of the spirit of the rules.
http://www.throughthegreen.org/In the Spirit of the Game of Golf.pdf

Finally, a couple of quotes from the R&A on the spirit of the game.
Honesty, integrity, courtesy: three words that have come to represent the spirit in which the game of golf is played.

It is this dependency upon honesty and courtesy that has elevated â€˜integrityâ€™ to sacrosanct status. Without them, we may as well hang up our clubs.
http://www.randa.org/en/Playing-Golf/Spirit-of-the-Game.aspx

One can play to the letter of the published rules, but would declaring a ball on the fairway unplayable be in the spirit of the game?

Just askin!


----------



## Snelly (Jun 11, 2013)

An interesting thread indeed.  In all my years playing golf I have never considered this, seen it done or even for a second, thought that it was feasible.  Every day is a school day I guess...  Of course, having read this I can see that this is perfectly legal and quite a clever approach to take in a given set of circumstances. 

However, to take the 2 foot putt scenario, I would never do what Swings It Like Hogan did.  Whilst it is without question, totally acceptable under the rules of the game, it does not seem like the right thing to do to me.  I am in full agreement with Bobmac.

No law is broken but in this instance, the law is an ass.  Jay Gee raises a good point in his post above too and from a personal perspective, I would not feel as though I was acting with integrity if I declared a ball as unplayable if it was in the fairway, 30 yards from the green.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 11, 2013)

Snelly, I thought the issue was not that he was declaring it unplayable, more that in the rules, people have said that at any point, you can retake a shot (with the obvious one shot penalty incurred). That's the way I was reading this at the moment? And that the "unplayable" bit is a red herring?

I have probably missed the point though, I'm still learning!


----------



## Colin L (Jun 11, 2013)

Jay Gee, there is no way in which a player who deems his ball to be unplayable whatever the circumstances and proceeds correctly according to Rule 28 is in breach of any other Rule.  He is simply doing what the Rule allows him to do.  Perhaps it is worth re-visiting what the Rules actually say is the spirit of the game:
_
The Spirit Of The Game
Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players *and to abide by the Rules.* All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf._

The bit I've put in bold type is relevant to this discussion.  If you deem your ball unplayable and follow the procedure, you are abiding by Rule 28.  By abiding by a Rule you are acting within the defined spirit of the game, not contrary to it.


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 11, 2013)

Colin L said:



			If you deem your ball unplayable and follow the procedure, you are abiding by Rule 28.  By abiding by a Rule you are acting within the defined spirit of the game, not contrary to it.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but my point was focused on the definition of the word unplayable and whether declaring a ball on a perfect lie as unplayable, is in the spirit of the game.

It's quite clear that it would be a whole can of worms to specify in the rules, what exactly constitutes an unplayable ball. Accounting for player's varying abilities alone would be a nightmare. So should rule 28 be treated as a player's prerogative or should there be at least some remote semblance of unplayability about it?

Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules? After all, the rules themselves do not cover all eventualities, which is why there are decisions. Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter. The PDF I linked to gives some examples.

Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?

This is more of a question than an assertion on my part.


----------



## Crow (Jun 11, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'd be more likely to be up before the men in white coats than your committee.

Unless the Committee wanted to speak to you about handicap protection for deliberately wasting a shot.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			I understand what you're saying, but my point was focused on the definition of the word unplayable and whether declaring a ball on a perfect lie as unplayable, is in the spirit of the game.

It's quite clear that it would be a whole can of worms to specify in the rules, what exactly constitutes an unplayable ball. Accounting for player's varying abilities alone would be a nightmare. So should rule 28 be treated as a player's prerogative or should there be at least some remote semblance of unplayability about it?

Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules? After all, the rules themselves do not cover all eventualities, which is why there are decisions. Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter. The PDF I linked to gives some examples.
		
Click to expand...

But there is no doubt about 27-1a, which is the Rule you are/should be using.

Don't declare the ball unplayable (Rule 28).

Use the absolutely unequivocal right of 27-1a to...

a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance. 

Can someone make the above 3 lines a 'sticky' in every post in this thread please? :sbox:


----------



## Colin L (Jun 11, 2013)

I think there is a bit of confusion around, not least because of this strange notion about a ball sitting clear of any problems on the fairway which a player would mysteriously deem  unplayable for no reason. 



Jay Gee said:



			Could a player not challenge an opponent's decision to deem a ball unplayable based upon the spirit of the game or rules?
No
  Some decisions override the rules, based upon the spirit of the game/rules even when the actions in question appear to follow the rules to the letter
No Decision overrides a Rule

Put it this way, would you be confident going before a committee after declaring a ball on the 18th fairway unplayable, when you are leading your club championship?
Why would I want to do that in the first place?  But if I had a reason to use Rule 28  as a player I would be entirely comfortable with that.   And quite honestly, as a member of the committee I wouldn't consider the legitimate actions of a player as of any interest or concern.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			But there is no doubt about 27-1a, which is the Rule you are/should be using.

Don't declare the ball unplayable (Rule 28).

Use the absolutely unequivocal right of 27-1a to...

a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance. 

Can someone make the above 3 lines a 'sticky' in every post in this thread please? :sbox:
		
Click to expand...

Again, just trying to understand the rules. 

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

*Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball*
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 11, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			Again, just trying to understand the rules. 

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

*Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball*
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an unqualified right to play from where you last played.  27-1a which you quote is saying that exactly.  It is what you must do if you lose a ball or it goes OOB; it  is what you may do as one of the options under a number of rules including unplayable ball; but it is also what you may do any time for any reason.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 11, 2013)

Jay Gee said:



			Again, just trying to understand the rules. 

Rule 27 addresses balls lost or OOB. Rather than an 'absolutely unequivocal right' i.e. anywhere at any time or under any circumstance, would it not be fair to think that stroke and distance requires a ball to be (or thought to possibly be) lost or OOB? Another rule (such as 28 ball unplayable) can specifically prescribe S&D as an option, but is S&D an unequivocal rule in it's own right or an action to follow when a ball is lost or OOB?

*Rule 27. Ball Lost or Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball*
27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball Out of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance 
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5), i.e. proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.
		
Click to expand...

He does have a point


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 11, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			He does have a point
		
Click to expand...

Not one that makes any difference.

All rules, including R28, that have Stroke and Distance as an option refer to 27-1.

I agree the main title of 27 should include 'Stroke and distance,....' though, as the subtitle certainly does.


----------



## Jay Gee (Jun 12, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Yes, it is an unqualified right to play from where you last played.  27-1a which you quote is saying that exactly.  It is what you must do if you lose a ball or it goes OOB; it  is what you may do as one of the options under a number of rules including unplayable ball; but it is also what you may do any time for any reason.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up Colin and others saying the same thing. I hope you understand my asking. The rule title comes before any subtitles or points and read through inexperienced eyes can give a different impression.

As to my comment about decisions overriding rules, I obviously phrased that incorrectly. What I meant to say, is that sometimes a decision will give a different rule priority over another rule. This may include breaches of etiquette or violations of the spirit of the game/rules.

If the rules were that straightforward in general, there would be no need for 1200 decisions or committee referrals


----------



## Colin L (Jun 12, 2013)

Yes, I can see how the way the rule is structured could  confuse.


----------



## Wessex (Jun 12, 2013)

To take a quote from the inside cover of the Rules of Golf:
_
'Play the ball as it lies,
play the course as you find it,
and if you can't do either,
do what is fair.
But to do what is fair,
you need to know the Rules of Golf.'

_Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 12, 2013)

Wessex said:



			To take a quote from the inside cover of the Rules of Golf:
_
'Play the ball as it lies,
play the course as you find it,
and if you can't do either,
do what is fair.
But to do what is fair,
you need to know the Rules of Golf.'

_Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that you wouldn't play with someone who took an unplayable or Stroke and distance in circumstances where you would have played the ball as it lies??


----------



## Colin L (Jun 12, 2013)

Wessex said:



			Whilst it is the player's sole decision to declare a ball unplayable,
it is you're fellow competitor's opinion whether that decision is fair
and whether they wish to play in competitions with that person in the future.
		
Click to expand...

So if you thought that I had "unfairly" deemed my ball unplayable in a competition, you wouldn't enter another competition if you knew I had entered it?  That's a very noble self-sacrifice for the sake of being morally troubled by the  legitimate application of the rules of golf.


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 12, 2013)

For all the discussion of the subject , declaring an unplayable lie that isn't in the middle of a bush, or taking stroke and distance when not forced to, that's something I very rarely do.
I think if I used my brain more, it is an option that I should consider more.


----------



## jason6r (Jun 12, 2013)

Well, I just read this thread from start to finish whilst cross-referencing rule applications on my Rules of Golf app.  A really interesting debate and one from which I have learned a lot, the most important learning point being that I need to familiarise myself with the Rules a lot more.

I've felt hard done by the rigid application of the rules in the past but never thought that they could be used to one's legitimate advantage.

Great thread (so far) and thanks to all who contributed knowledge and opinion as I've got a lot out of it.


----------



## Wessex (Jun 12, 2013)

Colin L said:



			So if you thought that I had "unfairly" deemed my ball unplayable in a competition, you wouldn't enter another competition if you knew I had entered it?  That's a very noble self-sacrifice for the sake of being morally troubled by the  legitimate application of the rules of golf.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say I wouldn't enter a competition etc, and I didn't say others wouldn't; they just might not want to. 

As far as I am concerned, Rule 28 was written to enable a person to take *relief* from a position which would make a shot either impossible or *unplayable* not to have another go as others have said.

Don't they call those instances the_ Rub of the Green_?

Just a fellow golfer's opinion you understand.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 13, 2013)

Wessex said:



			As far as I am concerned, Rule 28 was written to enable a person to take *relief* from a position which would make a shot either impossible or *unplayable* not to have another go as others have said.
		
Click to expand...

And 27-1a was written to allow a person to go back to the last position 'At any time'!


----------



## Wessex (Jun 13, 2013)

Rule 27 was thrown into the mix later on.

It is Rule 28 is the Rule that I thought was being discussed and the one that started the thread.


----------



## Wessex (Jun 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			And 27-1a was written to allow a person to go back to the last position 'At any time'!
		
Click to expand...

Rule 27
Ball Lost or Out of Bounds;
Provisional Ball.

27-1. Stroke and Distance; Ball out of bounds; 
Ball not found within five minutes


The way I read this as that a player may proceed with a penalty of stroke & distance after the ball is played OOB or is lost.

I don't see it as a way of retaking a shot if the original ball can clearly be seen on the fairway some 30 yards away.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 13, 2013)

Wessex said:



			Rule 27 was thrown into the mix later on.

It is Rule 28 is the Rule that I thought was being discussed and the one that started the thread.
		
Click to expand...

The 'controversial' bit was the ability to use the 27-1 option of 28 to replay, under penalty, a ball that is certainly not unplayable.
By invoking 27-1a directly, this potential 'breach of the spirit....' disappears! 

In other words, there is no need to 'declare it unplayable'(R28). Simply use the 'Stroke and Distance' clause 27-1a!


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			And 27-1a was written to allow a person to *go back* to the last position 'At any time'!
		
Click to expand...

......back, not forward.


----------



## USER1999 (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			......back, not forward. 

Click to expand...


Perhaps the rule should use the word return, not go back?


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			Perhaps the rule should use the word return, not go back?
		
Click to expand...

Spoil sport


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			......back, not forward. 

Click to expand...

Back in time...


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			......back, not forward. 

Click to expand...

Bob,

You are interpreting those two words (that non-explicitly, but abbreviatively paraphrase the wording of the Rule) in a way I hadn't intended. 'Return' would have been better. We are 1-1 on that sort of thing now.

Actually, the wording is ...

'play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played'

If they had intended to restrict it in any way, I am certain they would have. As in how all the Rules are (very deliberately) written, nothing more or less should be added or taken away as an interpretation. The should simply be applied literally. 

The absence of words in Rules is just as important as their presence!

BTW. Using 'go back, not forward' would be unworkable/unfair - as would 'provided the original place was not nearer the hole'.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 13, 2013)

Wessex said:



			I don't see it as a way of retaking a shot if the original ball can clearly be seen on the fairway some 30 yards away.
		
Click to expand...

But it is - quite legitimately - a way of doing just that.  But it's fine if  you don't see it that way and have scruples about using it: I don't mind at all.


----------



## North Mimms (Jun 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			But it is - quite legitimately - a way of doing just that.  But it's fine if  you don't see it that way and have scruples about using it: I don't mind at all.

Click to expand...

Retaking a shot is fine using stroke and distance- it comes at a cost of a penalty shot and having to make up the distance.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 13, 2013)

North Mimms said:



			Retaking a shot is fine using stroke and distance- it comes at a cost of a penalty shot *and having to make up the distance.*

Click to expand...

Don't say that.   You'll have Bobmac after you about replaying putts that have gone into bunkers/ponds      :temper:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

Region3 said:



_I'm not trying to start an argument with anybody, but I'm just enjoying the debate. _

Click to expand...

Me too


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

Wessex said:



			As far as I am concerned, Rule 28 was written to enable a person to take *relief* from a position _which would make a shot either impossible_ or *unplayable* not to have another go as others have said.
		
Click to expand...

...and indeed how many times have you found yourself in a position where you have thought to yourself - 'this is impossible - I've got absolutely no chance of ...' even although the ball is sitting there perfectly - in the clear - lovely lie - no swing impediments.  

And so what do you often do?  You'll apply course management and do something like chip the ball into a position where you do have a reasonable chance of making a shot.  And what have you just done? - effectively you have just taken a penalty shot to put your ball into a position where you have a shot you are confident of executing with a positive outcome.  

Nobody questions you doing that do they - in fact they congratulate you on good course management - especially if you then get up and down in two?


----------



## Region3 (Jun 13, 2013)

Colin L said:



			Don't say that.   You'll have Bobmac after you about replaying putts that have gone into bunkers/ponds      :temper:
		
Click to expand...

The pond one could be interesting!

Putt off the green into a 50yd wide pond and have to go all the way round the other side of it to drop.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and indeed how many times have you found yourself in a position where you have thought to yourself - 'this is impossible - I've got absolutely no chance of ...' even although the ball is sitting there perfectly - in the clear - lovely lie - no swing impediments.  

And so what do you often do?  You'll apply course management and do something like chip the ball into a position where you do have a reasonable chance of making a shot.  And what have you just done? - effectively you have just taken a penalty shot to put your ball into a position where you have a shot you are confident of executing with a positive outcome.  

Nobody questions you doing that do they - in fact they congratulate you on good course management - especially if you then get up and down in two?
		
Click to expand...

But you still have to hit that shot, you could still duff it and leave it in a bad position so it still requires an element of skill to get yourself back in position. Just picking it up and going back to where you last played is a cop out and shouldn't be allowed IMHO.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 13, 2013)

You also need to be confident enough that you're not going to put yourself back in the same situation again.
How to look stoopid in one easy lesson.


----------



## Colin L (Jun 13, 2013)

It's just a Mulligan with a difference ......... a penalty stroke difference.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

As pointed out by Imurg - yes you could look very stupid if you took stroke and distance as I suggested and repeated your previous shot.  

And yes - even a little chip takes skill.  But think on the times you've had to do such a little chip as you have been faced with an impossible shot - the chip is usually straight forward - and though we may not always get it as perfect as we'd want it - we usually get ourselves out of the predicament we are in and have a shot with a chance of a +ve outcome.

What you are doing is saying - I can't do this shot - it is unplayable - too risky - I'm copping out.

With my 2ft murderously difficult putt - I put it back on the green - I still have the same putt.  I can man up and have another go and hole it - or I might stand over it thinking on what has just happened and where I ended up.  And if my nerves and skill fail me - back to the bottom of the slope 30yds away go I.  

The argument against what I am saying seems to be that it doesn't seem right - against the spirit of the game.  But I still have to hole the putt - and into the bargain I have accrued a penalty shot.  What if my putt was 10ft from the hole - I missed it and ended up at the bottom of the slope 30yds away - or on the fringe of the green.  I choose to take S&D.  Is it still 'not right'?  And if fringe ois OK, or 10ft is OK - then where is the dividing line?  Correct - clearly there can't be one.  Whether I'm 2ft, 10ft or 50ft - makes no difference.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As pointed out by Imurg - yes you could look very stupid if you took stroke and distance as I suggested and repeated your previous shot.  

And yes - even a little chip takes skill.  But think on the times you've had to do such a little chip as you have been faced with an impossible shot - the chip is usually straight forward - and though we may not always get it as perfect as we'd want it - we usually get ourselves out of the predicament we are in and have a shot with a chance of a +ve outcome.

What you are doing is saying - I can't do this shot - it is unplayable - too risky - I'm copping out.

With my 2ft murderously difficult putt - I put it back on the green - I still have the same putt.  I can man up and have another go and hole it - or I might stand over it thinking on what has just happened and where I ended up.  And if my nerves and skill fail me - back to the bottom of the slope 30yds away go I.  

The argument against what I am saying seems to be that it doesn't seem right - against the spirit of the game.  But I still have to hole the putt - and into the bargain I have accrued a penalty shot.  What if my putt was 10ft from the hole - I missed it and ended up at the bottom of the slope 30yds away - or on the fringe of the green.  I choose to take S&D.  Is it still 'not right'?  And if fringe ois OK, or 10ft is OK - then where is the dividing line?  Correct - clearly there can't be one.  Whether I'm 2ft, 10ft or 50ft - makes no difference.
		
Click to expand...

The fundamental basis of the argument, for me at least, isn't how far from the hole your putt was or how far away it ended up, it is the fact that you can choose not to play a perfectly playable shot because you think it will take you more shots to get in the hole from that position than it would taking a penalty and replaying the shot. In this case, although you are taking a penalty shot, you are actually doing so to improve your score and have therefore not really been penalised.

Unless you can't physically play the shot i.e. It is unplayable, you should have to play it.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

where is the dividing line? Correct - clearly there can't be one.
		
Click to expand...

How about not nearer the hole?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

It seems to me like the rules had 2 options when it was written:

Potentially allow the situation where someone like SILH can use the rules to avoid playing a shot,

OR

Remove the right for an individual to determine any shot they like as "unplayable", and risk unscrupulous opponents claiming any shot is playable, and that they have to play it.

I much prefer the way it is written now, if it was a straight choice.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			How about not nearer the hole?
		
Click to expand...

So how would it work if I hit it into a tree, it rebounds behind deep in the rough stuff, that I would deem it unplayable, but the 2 club lengths relief wouldn't be useful because I'm 20 foot in.... Do I have to go back to the tee?


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			So how would it work if I hit it into a tree, it rebounds behind deep in the rough stuff, that I would deem it unplayable, but the 2 club lengths relief wouldn't be useful because I'm 20 foot in.... Do I have to go back to the tee?
		
Click to expand...

There's a big difference from being unplayable 20 feet in the rough stuff and being in the middle of the fairway.

One is unplayable and the other isn't.
....and before anyone tells me again.........I know it's up to the individual to decide what is and what isn't unplayable.

I'm not saying the rule has to be changed and waging a one man campaign to get it changed, I just said I think it's wrong that's all.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			There's a big difference from being unplayable 20 feet in the rough stuff and being in the middle of the fairway.

One is unplayable and the other isn't.
....and before anyone tells me again.........I know it's up to the individual to decide what is and what isn't unplayable.

I'm not saying the rule has to be changed and waging a one man campaign to get it changed, I just said I think it's wrong that's all.
		
Click to expand...

And for what it's worth, I agree with Bob


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			And for what it's worth, I agree with Bob
		
Click to expand...

Woohoo, a 2 man campaign


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			The fundamental basis of the argument, for me at least, isn't how far from the hole your putt was or how far away it ended up, it is the fact that _you can choose not to play a perfectly playable shot because you think it will take you more shots to get in the hole from that position than it would taking a penalty and replaying the shot._ In this case, although you are taking a penalty shot, you are actually doing so to improve your score and have therefore not really been penalised.

Unless you can't physically play the shot i.e. It is unplayable, you should have to play it.
		
Click to expand...

Italicised - only the player decides whether a shot is 'perfectly playable' or not.  We do this all the time.  We choose not to play one shot rather than another.  

And your final statement - about physically being unable to play the shot - play what shot?  There is no one 'shot' defined for any ball position.  My ball is against a tree - it is usually not _unplayable _in your definition - I just can't play a shot that will be more to my advantage that take a penalty shot.  

As far as Bob's not nearer the hole arguement.  So missing an 8ft downhill putt I roll of the green into a greenside bunker - and my ball drops right under the face - and 7ft from the flag.  Replacing my ball on the green taking stroke and distance I am not nearer the hole.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			Woohoo, a 2 man campaign 

Click to expand...

Make that 3!!


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

As far as Bob's not nearer the hole arguement. So missing an 8ft downhill putt I roll of the green into a greenside bunker - and my ball drops right under the face - and 7ft from the flag. Replacing my ball on the green taking stroke and distance I am not nearer the hole.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be against that although it would be an unusual situation for the ball to roll 7 feet from the hole and be unplayable.
My issue is still with
1. Claiming it unplayable in the fairway
and then
 2.dropping /placing it 30 yards nearer the hole


----------



## bladeplayer (Jun 13, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Make that 3!!
		
Click to expand...


4...


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

Out of interest Bob, could you think of anyway that the rule could be written that would suit how you feel? I can definitely see where you are coming from in the moral standpoint, but as an accountant, I'm looking at using the rules exactly as written. 

I have tried to think of a way to amend them such that they would stop the current situation, but not punish a player further for the examples given. Not sure I know enough of the rules to be able to think of anything though!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Italicised - only the player decides whether a shot is 'perfectly playable' or not.  We do this all the time.  We choose not to play one shot rather than another.  

And your final statement - about physically being unable to play the shot - play what shot?  There is no one 'shot' defined for any ball position.  My ball is against a tree - it is usually not _unplayable _in your definition - I just can't play a shot that will be more to my advantage that take a penalty shot.  

As far as Bob's not nearer the hole arguement.  So missing an 8ft downhill putt I roll of the green into a greenside bunker - and my ball drops right under the face - and 7ft from the flag.  Replacing my ball on the green taking stroke and distance I am not nearer the hole.
		
Click to expand...

OK, I don't think we are going to agree on this as the rule is there for all to see. Let me just say this (which you may not like or agree with )...

_Any player who decides that a ball either...

a) on the fringe
b) on the fairway
c) anywhere else that is in a decent lie (i.e. light rough)
d) has nothing impeding the swing

...isn't playable or decides to take S&D relief and returns to the original spot because they consider that doing so will give them a lower score because the shot in hand is too hard from them to execute is taking the absolute unequivocal down right "biscuit" out of the rules_

All IMHO of course


----------



## bladeplayer (Jun 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			OK, I don't think we are going to agree on this as the rule is there for all to see. Let me just say this (which you may not like or agree with )...

_Any player who decides that a ball either...

a) on the fringe
b) on the fairway
c) anywhere else that is in a decent lie (i.e. light rough)
d) has nothing impeding the swing

...isn't playable or decides to take S&D relief and returns to the original spot because they consider that doing so will give them a lower score because the shot in hand is too hard from them to execute is taking the absolute unequivocal down right "biscuit" out of the rules_

All IMHO of course 

Click to expand...


Or declaring a ball that is obviously playable , unplayable because it doesnt suit .. 

but hey it aint against the rules , so work away   just a personal opinion


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I wouldn't be against that although it would be an unusual situation for the ball to roll 7 feet from the hole and be unplayable.
My issue is still with
1. Claiming it unplayable in the fairway
and then
 2.dropping /placing it 30 yards nearer the hole
		
Click to expand...

1. I am not saying that the *ball *is unplayable - I am the sole arbiter in any decision as to whether or not the shot I am faced with is unplayable.  So I have the option go back to where I started - one shot penalty - a basic tenet of rules of golf.
2. trying to correlate 'nearness' to hole with 'difficulty or easiness' isn't going to happen - too many other factors to consider.  We would probably all prefer a straight uphill 3 footer than a cross-slope downhill 2 footer.  And were you to say - 'well that's different' - you open up a myriad of opinions and interpretations of difficulty and a nightmare.  So if I belt my 3ft uphill putt 2 ft past - I might choose to take S&D and take my uphill putt again


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

Is it significantly worse than those who will take (legal) relief from standing water when the merest hint of water rises up under their feet upon taking a stance?

Or those who can legitimately "claim" to be using a certain type of club for a shot, so as  to be able to claim relief from a path or such like, when you know that the likelihood was if the path wasn't there, they would have played a different shot?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Or declaring a ball that is obviously playable , unplayable because it doesnt suit .. 

but hey it aint against the rules , so work away   just a personal opinion
		
Click to expand...

But using words such as 'obviously' is far too subjective.  Even the most obvious consideration of shots from tricky spots that left handers can play that are essentially unplayable for right handers tells you that.  In golf in *every *round in almost *every* hole we decide that a particular shot is unplayable and choose another option.  Nothikng to do with whether we canhit the ball or not.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			I wouldn't be against that although it would be an unusual situation for the ball to roll 7 feet from the hole and be unplayable.
My issue is still with
1. Claiming it unplayable in the fairway
and then
 2.dropping /placing it 30 yards nearer the hole
		
Click to expand...

But that's an even less likely situation and even if deemed slightly dubious (not imo) worth allowing, with the penalty, for the hassle of considering all the other (possibly unfair) situations where a shot could be impossible. It 'guarantees' that there is some sort of shot available after every shot.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			OK, I don't think we are going to agree on this as the rule is there for all to see. Let me just say this (which you may not like or agree with )...

_Any player who decides that a ball either...

a) on the fringe
b) on the fairway
c) anywhere else that is in a decent lie (i.e. light rough)
d) has nothing impeding the swing

...isn't playable or decides to take S&D relief and returns to the original spot because they consider that doing so will give them a lower score because the shot in hand is too hard from them to execute is taking the absolute unequivocal down right "biscuit" out of the rules_

All IMHO of course 

Click to expand...

_because they consider that doing so will give them a lower score _

And there's the rub - there is NO guarantee of anything - and it is down to the player to assess the risk and reduce his own uncertainty.  That's the game and the rules suggest that you should know the rules.  Which is where we came in elsewhere in another thread 

And I might agree with you on your general point if the rules didn't take the downright "biscuit" out of the player on occasions.  Golf was never meant to be fair - so when you can use them to you 'possible' advantage then use them - and feels no qualms whatsoever about doing so.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 13, 2013)

So I have the option *go back* to where I started - one shot penalty - a basic tenet of rules of golf.
		
Click to expand...

So is dropping/rolling/placing not nearer the hole.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

bobmac said:



			So is dropping/rolling/placing not nearer the hole.
		
Click to expand...

Only where it says so in the rules...  And will equally apply to taking S&D where your ball should not end up any closer to the hole than the point it was before taking your shot.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

And I'll add - that I'd agree with Bob and the others on this as it my instinct also that what I am doing is not right.  

But in a similar vein as oft I have said - I do not think it is right for DMDs/GPS to be used in competitions for similar sorts of reasons.  However I am overwhelmingly shouted down on that one - so I'm saying - well if *you *can use technology to reduce uncertainty in your decision making, the shot you are about to play, and the score you make - then by heck I'll use the rules to their very limits to reduce *mine*.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 13, 2013)

Nobody's saying you can't do it
Same as the DMD question, if it's in the rules, fill yer boots.
It's whether there should be some restriction on when and where you can use S&D that is  question.
Personally, I don't think you should be able to replay your shot if the ball is to be dropped/placed nearer the hole than the original position unless the ball has rebounded behind that original position after hitting something.
So if you putt off a green, if the ball is now further away from the hole than the original position you should have to play it unless it has hit something and rebounded behind you, behind you being beyond a spot at 90degrees between you and the hole..in a case of  difficulty determining 90 degrees, benefit of the doubt to be given to the golfer and S&D may be taken

Should cover it shouldn't it...?


----------



## Crow (Jun 13, 2013)

The Rules are written in such a way as to remove any grey area from a decision.

If they were to exclude calling an unplayable if your ball is in a "good lie", at what point is that lie no longer good?
We're now into the realms of opinion and two golfers will have a different opinion of when the lie is no longer good, or the ball is only in "light rough". Or is my ball now further from the hole than where I played it?, will we have to carry a tape measure to check this (or, heaven forbid, a distance measuring device?).

The rule as written excludes issues of "interpretation" of a good/unplayable lie by leaving the decision purely with the golfer whose shot it is.

I can't see a better way of doing it, if that offends the sensibilities of some then I'm sure that the R&A are very sorry but they're not going to change it.

Perhaps there should be some bifurcation, "purists" on one side, "realists" on the other.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

Crow said:



			If they were to exclude calling an unplayable if your ball is in a "good lie", at what point is that lie no longer good?
		
Click to expand...

And I'd simply say that the answer to that question is that it nothing actually to do with the lie as such, if the player simply decides that he doesn't fancy a shot for wshatever reason - he can take S&D if he choses.

and @Imurg - too complicated and too open to interpretation.  The fact that your ball might be closer to the hole afgter taking S&D than where it ended up after the original shot is to me a red herring - neither here nor there - and something purely based on the notion that it *feels *better the closer we are to the hole - when in fact we *know* that that is certainly not always the case.  If it *was* always the case then I'd see the merit in the 'closer' argument - but closer just does not always mean better or easier.

..and my point about DMDs, is that if doing what I have done is thought my some to be stretching the rules to gain an advantage - then allowing DMDs is also in my view also.  A committee is stretching the rules that allow DMDs when they allow them in a competition - IMO.  

Anyway I'm done on this - just no-one question my integrity if and when I use this rule in this way again in the future


----------

