A question for the rules experts

[clubchamp98]

But then we are back to the non-time saving scenario, who would drop in the rough if they could go back to the tee and take their chances of hitting the fairway with 3 off the tee

Yes but they might not hit the fairway with the next ball and lose that as well.
If they could drop on the fairway it’s a no brainier.

But you hit it there so play your next from there.
Just my opinion

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Just make any penalty one shot. Remove the question of 'is it one shot or two?'

Also, make dropping the ball from wherever a constant. Not one club, two club lengths, anywhere backwards in line etc. Pick one option and that's it.

Make things more straightforward

 

[rulie]

I believe the Joint Rules Commitee (joint between R&A and USGA) and the R&A Rules Committee and USGA Rules Committee are doing a great service updating the Rules as they deem necessary. I support their rationale and the outcomes.
As noted elsewhere, updates are an evolution, not a revolution (and it should stay that way).

 

[KenL]

I would change the rule about “accidentally” causing a ball to move to be the same as the for on the green. That is, no penalty. If not replaced, a one shot penalty.

All penalties, in stroke play, set at one stroke.

I would change the rule so that you place the ball in a bunker, not drop it.

If a bunker is full of water, and you are not able to take full relief, it should not require a “gur” sign in it. Free drop outside the bunker at all times.

I would not allow people to use anything other than a putter on a putting green.

Some local rules.

Removal of allowing clubs to say paths are integral parts of the course.

Removal the local rule allowing clubs to not give free relief from a ball embedded in a stacked turf bunker face.

 

[bobmac]

I've never been fond of the penalty for your ball hitting you.
eg
You hit a bunker shot, the ball hits the bank, bounces back and hits you.
(Is it still a one shot penalty?)

 

[Orikoru]

I've never been fond of the penalty for your ball hitting you.
eg
You hit a bunker shot, the ball hits the bank, bounces back and hits you.
(Is it still a one shot penalty?)

I could be wrong here but I think they removed that penalty? Didn't it happen to a pro recently? Maybe at the Open or the Scottish Open. Someone else will clarify I'm sure.

 

[Bdill93]

Just make any penalty one shot. Remove the question of 'is it one shot or two?'

Also, make dropping the ball from wherever a constant. Not one club, two club lengths, anywhere backwards in line etc. Pick one option and that's it.

Make things more straightforward

This would be my only suggestion too! One stroke for every penalty across the board.

Obviously for big things/ rule breaking DQ's etc are still in play too.

Simplifying rules needs to be the main reason for change.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I've never been fond of the penalty for your ball hitting you.
eg
You hit a bunker shot, the ball hits the bank, bounces back and hits you.
(Is it still a one shot penalty?)

Penalty removed

 

[Deleted member 35927]

I've never been fond of the penalty for your ball hitting you.
eg
You hit a bunker shot, the ball hits the bank, bounces back and hits you.
(Is it still a one shot penalty?)

Long gone, along with the double hit amongst other changes. Possibly in the 2019 update

 

[LincolnShep]

It wouldn't affect any of us but I'd change a rule on the pro tours hard cards. If ropes are put up to define spectator areas, then those ropes also define out of bounds. It seems unfair that a wayward drive ends in the rough, but a much worse drive clears the rough, bounces off a couple of people and ends up on a good lie because the grass has been trampled.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

It wouldn't affect any of us but I'd change a rule on the pro tours hard cards. If ropes are put up to define spectator areas, then those ropes also define out of bounds. It seems unfair that a wayward drive ends in the rough, but a much worse drive clears the rough, bounces off a couple of people and ends up on a good lie because the grass has been trampled.

This would single handedly ruin the enjoyment of going to watch golf in person.

 

[LincolnShep]

This would single handedly ruin the enjoyment of going to watch golf in person.

How come?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

It wouldn't affect any of us but I'd change a rule on the pro tours hard cards. If ropes are put up to define spectator areas, then those ropes also define out of bounds. It seems unfair that a wayward drive ends in the rough, but a much worse drive clears the rough, bounces off a couple of people and ends up on a good lie because the grass has been trampled.

That narrows the golf course up significantly

 

[Deleted member 35927]

How come?

Chasing down wild shots and getting up close with golfers and caddy is a fun part of the day.

 

[Swango1980]

It wouldn't affect any of us but I'd change a rule on the pro tours hard cards. If ropes are put up to define spectator areas, then those ropes also define out of bounds. It seems unfair that a wayward drive ends in the rough, but a much worse drive clears the rough, bounces off a couple of people and ends up on a good lie because the grass has been trampled.

Imagine how many stroke and distance penalties that would incur, with crowds often close to the left and right hand side of the fairway.

Golf tournaments would probably be won based on how many penalties a player can avoid, rather than how well they play. If you are playing a 500 yard Par 4, or 650 yard Par 5, I think it would be a bit unfair to get a stroke and distance penalty of a player hits a big drive, but it goes 10 yards left or right of the fairway to where fans are.

And, if this Rule was brought in, I can imagine the players would demand that fans are positioned much much further away from the fairways. Thus, it would make it a worse viewing experience for them. It will also reduce their opportunity to get a signed glove

 

[Orikoru]

It wouldn't affect any of us but I'd change a rule on the pro tours hard cards. If ropes are put up to define spectator areas, then those ropes also define out of bounds. It seems unfair that a wayward drive ends in the rough, but a much worse drive clears the rough, bounces off a couple of people and ends up on a good lie because the grass has been trampled.

Completely agree and I've been saying that for years. I first brought it up as an answer to the 'roll-back' issue, because it would force bomb-and-gougers to think twice if galleries were out of bounds - more emphasis on keeping it in play. It would also partially protect people from getting hit in the head with a ball, if it makes the players a bit more careful.

You could of course move the crowd area back slightly in accordance with this.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Completely agree and I've been saying that for years. I first brought it up as an answer to the 'roll-back' issue, because it would force bomb-and-gougers to think twice if galleries were out of bounds - more emphasis on keeping it in play. It would also partially protect people from getting hit in the head with a ball, if it makes the players a bit more careful.

You could of course move the crowd area back slightly in accordance with this.

How far back do you remove the crowd ?

At links courses it will prob reduce the capacity by half with holes close to each other - parkland courses might be worse with the level of trees

And then what about grandstands and players hitting it into them ?

The fairways are hard enough to hit as it is

And not all lies where spectators are will be better than the rough , plenty get poor lies where crowds are

 

[Orikoru]

How far back do you remove the crowd ?

At links courses it will prob reduce the capacity by half with holes close to each other - parkland courses might be worse with the level of trees

And then what about grandstands and players hitting it into them ?

The fairways are hard enough to hit as it is

And not all lies where spectators are will be better than the rough , plenty get poor lies where crowds are

Why is it always whataboutery and Devil's advocate with you? It's exhausting. Move the crowd to wherever is deemed necessary. Who cares? They still have grandstands to pack them in.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Why is it always whataboutery and Devil's advocate with you? It's exhausting. Move the crowd to wherever is deemed necessary. Who cares? They still have grandstands to pack them in.

Surely when you bring in an idea you expect people to challenge the validity and real life workings of an idea

A golf course isn’t a massive expanse of empty space where crowds can be filled even more so a links course - if you want to see them moved back so there isn’t rough trampled on you ruin both the spectator experience as well as reduce the amount that can go an watch

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Note this rule is also for lost balls as well as out of bounds, so you would need to estimate the spot where the ball was lost and, in this scenario, drop 2 CL from there.

Problem is most golfers well over estimate how far they have hit a ball, especially when they slice one. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times a ball has been found 30 or more yards short of where someone is looking for their ball. It’s even worse if it’s rattled around some trees first. The ball could be anywhere.

If you don’t want to hit 3 off the tee don’t hit it OB. The same with lost balls, if you are not 100% certain where your ball is, hit a provisional.

Pros should not get free drops from grandstands or scoreboards.

Anyone who uses the term bomb and gouge should receive a birching behind the green keeper’s sheds

A big one for saving time would be to make all swings count as a stroke.