2012 Rules of Golf - is common sense starting to prevail?!

[Billysboots]

I was just having a flick through the new Rules of Golf. Well, it's what you do when the good lady is watching that "gritty northern drama" Coronation Street, isn't it? And I couldn't help noticing that, included in the new changes, at long last Mr Dawson and co up at the R & A appear to be introducing a little long overdue common sense.

Rule 18-2b now allows for a ball to move after address and be played without penalty if it is "known or virtually certain" that the player did not cause it to move. So no more seeing the pros on telly fannying about on greens for hours trying to decide if a sudden gust of wind has caused their ball to move a fraction.

That's one step in the right direction, but what other rules do you think are long overdue for a bit of attention?

 

[chrisd]

Agreed on that one Billy but I really don't understand why the ball is not replaced. After all it can move after you have marked it then replaced it so it seems logical to replace it without penalty


I also am disappointed that the use of measuring devices isn't allowed without Colonel Blimp at the "Stuck Golf Club" being cajoled into agreeing


Chris

 

[bladeplayer]

As i mentioned in another post Billy i think they have made a mistake with the one about been allowed smooth bunkers or other hazzards before you play from them , of course it states so long as it is deemed maintenance & you are not testing the ground , how can you rake a bunker without gaining info on the depth/quality of the sand?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I agree that repacing it seems to make more sense but the rule itself is an improvement

 

[Imurg]

I also am disappointed that the use of measuring devices isn't allowed without Colonel Blimp at the "Stuck Golf Club" being cajoled into agreeing


Chris

I don't think they clarified the use of DMD's or Smartphones enough. There's just too many grey areas within the rules as they stand. Too open to interpretation - which can lead to the incorrect interpretation. Either DMD's are legal or they're not - at the moment they're "sort of" legal.....
Not good enough.

 

[chrisd]

I don't think they clarified the use of DMD's or Smartphones enough. There's just too many grey areas within the rules as they stand. Too open to interpretation - which can lead to the incorrect interpretation. Either DMD's are legal or they're not - at the moment they're "sort of" legal.....
Not good enough.

I think that you may have got the argument a bit "back to front". The use of (just) measuring devices are absolutely legal where the committee have passed a local rule - no question, no doubt - the problem is when players use phone apps and that has been done to death here.

My disagreement is with the R & A allowing comittees to decide for the next 2 or 3 years whether to pass the local rule as if its only their thought on the matter that counts. If the committee is made up of some of the "it's against the spirit of the game" lot that surface on here then players won't be allowed the same opportunities universally just because of a whim of some stick in the mud. Our club passed a local rule within a week or so of the decision of the R & A coming out


What next??? Ban the broom handle putter???





Chris

 

[Pants]

how can you rake a bunker without gaining info on the depth/quality of the sand?

In most of the bunkers that I end up in, the composition of the "sand" under the ball is rarely the same as where my feet are or any other area that can be raked.

We know that when the pros are playing, the sand depth and consistency in the bunkers is virtually 100% consistent. They don't even rake the sand themselves. This rule is for the other 99.999999 % of us golfers who can gain absolutely no advantage by raking a bit of sand before we attempt a shot into the unknown.

 

[pigmeister]

Bladeplayer, Gary Tait plays at JOG and works for the PGA on the tour. his interpretation of the bunker rule is if you are playing one of the modren courses that have long fairway bunkers, if you go in them of the tee then hit your next shot 150 yds but are still in the same bunker then you are allowed to rake the bunker before moving on to take your next bunker shot, which you could`nt do before as it you were deemed to be testing the sand/bunker.

 

[wull]

i think you should be able to remove your ball from a divot on the fairway,i feel it's unfair that you get punished for a good tee shot that goes straight down the middle.

 

[bladeplayer]

Bladeplayer, Gary Tait plays at JOG and works for the PGA on the tour. his interpretation of the bunker rule is if you are playing one of the modren courses that have long fairway bunkers, if you go in them of the tee then hit your next shot 150 yds but are still in the same bunker then you are allowed to rake the bunker before moving on to take your next bunker shot, which you could`nt do before as it you were deemed to be testing the sand/bunker.

"rule 13-4 is amended to permit a player to smooth sand or soil in a hazzard at any time ,including before playing from that hazzard provided it is for the sole purpose of caring for the course & rule 13-2 is not breached.. also watched the video of grant noir explaining the rules & he emphasised the before part aswell.. maybe i have it wrong but im not so sure i have , open to correction tho

 

[Pants]

i think you should be able to remove your ball from a divot on the fairway,i feel it's unfair that you get punished for a good tee shot that goes straight down the middle.

Ah! Another old chestnut.

What's your/the definition of a divot?

Bruised grass, 1/4" scrape, 1" deep hole. If the grass has been replaced, is it still a divot?

More possibility of rule breaking than almost anything else.

One of the basic ethos of golf is Play The Ball As It Lies.

If it's in a divot then play it - just take a bigger divot. Can't see the problem.

 

[wull]

Ah! Another old chestnut.

What's your/the definition of a divot?

Bruised grass, 1/4" scrape, 1" deep hole. If the grass has been replaced, is it still a divot?

More possibility of rule breaking than almost anything else.

One of the basic ethos of golf is Play The Ball As It Lies.

If it's in a divot then play it - just take a bigger divot. Can't see the problem.

"play it as it lies"....now that definately is one of those "old chestnut" moments.fact is you play a perfectly good tee shot and end up in a divot,it's not as simple as take another divot,if it was as simple as that then there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[JezzE]

Ah! Another old chestnut.

What's your/the definition of a divot?

Bruised grass, 1/4" scrape, 1" deep hole. If the grass has been replaced, is it still a divot?

More possibility of rule breaking than almost anything else.

One of the basic ethos of golf is Play The Ball As It Lies.

If it's in a divot then play it - just take a bigger divot. Can't see the problem.

Agree with this 100%. Absolutely no way you could ever define what is and isn't a divot, so just deal with it and get on with it... and try and remember those times when your ball ends up on a tiny patch of short grass in a sea of jungle (probably happens as often as you ball ends up in a deep divot in all honesty)

 

[StuartD]

I agree that repacing it seems to make more sense but the rule itself is an improvement

The reason they have not gone for a replace when the ball is moved by the wind is simple. If you replaced it the likelyhood is that it will hapen again. I think the introduction of the new rule is to try and keep tournaments going in windy conditions. If you kept trying to replace the ball and it continued to move, then they will still have to suspend tournaments. When the ball is moved by the wind it is likely to stop in a more sheltered flatter part of the green and you can continue from the new spot far easier.

 

[chrisd]

if you are playing one of the modren courses that have long fairway bunkers, if you go in them of the tee then hit your next shot 150 yds but are still in the same bunker then you are allowed to rake the bunker before moving on to take your next bunker shot, which you could`nt do before as it you were deemed to be testing the sand/bunker.

I can quite understand that. Chart Hills, close to where I live has a continuous bunker that runs pretty much the length of the fairway on a par 5 before crossing the fairway abbout 100 yards from the green - you could stay in it for half of your life!

I wonder how many people have hit 3 or 4 shots as they moved up the bunker and raked after each shot?


Chris

 

[bluetoon]

Agree with this 100%. Absolutely no way you could ever define what is and isn't a divot, so just deal with it and get on with it... and try and remember those times when your ball ends up on a tiny patch of short grass in a sea of jungle (probably happens as often as you ball ends up in a deep divot in all honesty)

Nope cant agree with this.
If playing partner agrees that the divot is a divot then relief should be granted. simples
Dont see what is difficult about that, our course is full of them and cant see many people arguing the odds.
No different from other abnormal condition rule, Casual water, burrowing animal, GUR etc

On a links course certain parts of the fairway 'gather' the ball due to undulations and these can be scattered with dozens of divots, seems unfair to be penalised for hitting a good shot on the fairway.

 

[Imurg]

I think that you may have got the argument a bit "back to front". The use of (just) measuring devices are absolutely legal where the committee have passed a local rule - no question, no doubt - the problem is when players use phone apps and that has been done to death here.

My disagreement is with the R & A allowing comittees to decide for the next 2 or 3 years whether to pass the local rule as if its only their thought on the matter that counts. If the committee is made up of some of the "it's against the spirit of the game" lot that surface on here then players won't be allowed the same opportunities universally just because of a whim of some stick in the mud. Our club passed a local rule within a week or so of the decision of the R & A coming out

Chris

There are still courses that don't allow DMD's - ok not that many but they are around. And technically DMD's are illegal. A local rule has to be passed. And as you say there are Committees made up of the Old Guard that don't think it's right. That's the grey area - either they are legal or they aren't. Take the choice away from these antiquated Committee Members. To my mind the R&A don't want DMD's to be legal, they're bowing to pressure as the units are out there in such numbers. If they were perfectly happy for them to be used they would be made 100% legal.
And as you say, the phone app thing has been done to death - but is there a difinitive judgement? I don't think so.

 

[chrisd]

There are still courses that don't allow DMD's - ok not that many but they are around. And technically DMD's are illegal. A local rule has to be passed. And as you say there are Committees made up of the Old Guard that don't think it's right. That's the grey area - either they are legal or they aren't. Take the choice away from these antiquated Committee Members. To my mind the R&A don't want DMD's to be legal, they're bowing to pressure as the units are out there in such numbers. If they were perfectly happy for them to be used they would be made 100% legal.
And as you say, the phone app thing has been done to death - but is there a difinitive judgement? I don't think so.

I was at Wentworth about 3 years ago and heard Monty telling a group of guys in his Pro am that he felt that DMD's would be legal for Pro competitions within a couple of years - not worked out that way but I still feel he's right. I thought that when the R & A said that they could be used they had to do it on a local rule fore the simple reason that they only bring out a new rule book every 3 years, so, they couldn't put the change into the rules until this edition 2012 -2015. They could easily have ruled in favour of the current equipment that is ok but for some reason chose not to.

On the phone apps, I think that there pretty well is a difinitive ruling - you can use then if they on measure distance but if they do the things that the R & A prohibit then they can't be used. Pretty well understood by all by now I think.


Chris

 

[Imurg]

On the phone apps, I think that there pretty well is a difinitive ruling - you can use then if they on measure distance but if they do the things that the R & A prohibit then they can't be used. Pretty well understood by all by now I think.


Chris

Understood by most on here because we keep banging on about it - I would guess that hardly any of the Rank and File members at clubs understand it at all. Has it been covered in magazines or the like?
Hell, we see from posts on here that a serious number don't understand basic rules - the phone app business isn't as basic as how drop from a hazard...........

 

[USER1999]

I tried reading the new rule book, but gave up. The plot is poor, no character definition, and it didn't seem to be developing in any particular direction.

Some of the rules are still totally baffling, and some are contradictory. It needs simplifying, ideally so that it does not have to be read with the book of decisions in the other hand.