Tour school two stroke penalty...ouch.

[Orikoru]

Your ageism is shinning through again.

If you can't discerned the difference between obeying rules and questioning them it's no wonder you post this way. Some people have come to their present understanding of the rules through questioning them for decades.....and listening to the views and opinions given.

This is the exact reverse of that though? It's the other side of the divide who always say "well that's the rule and that's the way it is, and if you can't obey them then don't play golf". The point is questioning why the rules are the way they are is nothing to do with whether you obey them or not. Obviously we all obey them as best we can or we wouldn't get very far in our respective clubs.

 

[duncan mackie]

.....
It shouldn't be like this - you either can or you can't.
Any other way leads to confusion.

The vast majority of the rules are as a direct result of relief options. There are a number of people (not all old!) who consider that removing all such options would make the game 'better'...it would certainly make it more closely fit your model 🤔 Most currently don't have any real comprehension of rule 20, and going forwards 14 is equally challenging, but for different reasons (by focusing on logical outcomes, rather than blindly following process, it is difficult to see how the various penalty situations are arrived at - so you have to either learn a lot or look up frequently.

If you further take away everything to do with time saving and caring for the course you get rid of a whole lot more rules (and rules begat further rules).

 

[duncan mackie]

This is the exact reverse of that though? It's the other side of the divide who always say "well that's the rule and that's the way it is, and if you can't obey them then don't play golf". The point is questioning why the rules are the way they are is nothing to do with whether you obey them or not. Obviously we all obey them as best we can or we wouldn't get very far in our respective clubs.

I am afraid you have lost me.

Again you are putting together people who explain what the rule is, with those who are happy to explain why it is, bring in an arbritary "that's the way it is", (which appears to be more of a catch all) and then add a derogatory ending (the origins of which I can understand from posts to the thread but it was neither constructive when made nor relevant to any rule debate.

In an effort to try move things forward in the direction you suggest has merit, how do you believe the rules should cover the principle of 13.2? Do you believe that it isn't necessary to have any rule dealing with this and that players should be free to Do what they wish, when the wish and how they wish?

 

[Orikoru]

I am afraid you have lost me.

Again you are putting together people who explain what the rule is, with those who are happy to explain why it is, bring in an arbritary "that's the way it is", (which appears to be more of a catch all) and then add a derogatory ending (the origins of which I can understand from posts to the thread but it was neither constructive when made nor relevant to any rule debate.

In an effort to try move things forward in the direction you suggest has merit, how do you believe the rules should cover the principle of 13.2? Do you believe that it isn't necessary to have any rule dealing with this and that players should be free to Do what they wish, when the wish and how they wish?

I said earlier the problem is unnecessary application of the rule. The rule of improving the lie of the bunker presumably exists on the off-chance you then play into it and have a better lie than you would have had. In this case though he didn't go into it, he chipped over it, raking the bunker had absolutely no bearing on his score and therefore he gained no advantage and there was no need to retrospectively punish him. He made a small, honest mistake of raking a bunker when he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to, but as it made zero difference in the end, what's the point of punishing him two shots? It's unfair.

 

[duncan mackie]

I said earlier the problem is unnecessary application of the rule. The rule of improving the lie of the bunker presumably exists on the off-chance you then play into it and have a better lie than you would have had. In this case though he didn't go into it, he chipped over it, raking the bunker had absolutely no bearing on his score and therefore he gained no advantage and there was no need to retrospectively punish him. He made a small, honest mistake of raking a bunker when he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to, but as it made zero difference in the end, what's the point of punishing him two shots? It's unfair.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, your issue is that a player should only be penalised if the action he takes gains him an advantage?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I said earlier the problem is unnecessary application of the rule. The rule of improving the lie of the bunker presumably exists on the off-chance you then play into it and have a better lie than you would have had. In this case though he didn't go into it, he chipped over it, raking the bunker had absolutely no bearing on his score and therefore he gained no advantage and there was no need to retrospectively punish him. He made a small, honest mistake of raking a bunker when he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to, but as it made zero difference in the end, what's the point of punishing him two shots? It's unfair.

If they hadn’t applied the rule fairly, another player would of missed out on moving on to the next stage, is it fair on that bloke?

 

[Orikoru]

So, if I'm reading you correctly, your issue is that a player should only be penalised if the action he takes gains him an advantage?

If he breaks a rule deliberately to gain an advantage yes!

If they hadn’t applied the rule fairly, another player would of missed out on moving on to the next stage, is it fair on that bloke?

Yes of course it is because 'that bloke' didn't play well enough to qualify. Do you think he feels great about sneaking through thanks to some daft technicality? He's just got lucky.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If he breaks a rule deliberately to gain an advantage yes!


Yes of course it is because 'that bloke' didn't play well enough to qualify. Do you think he feels great about sneaking through thanks to some daft technicality? He's just got lucky.

Again, you’re saying it’s a daft technicality, it’s not.
As for the bloke you claimed “didn’t play well” yes he did, and he played by the rules.

 

[Orikoru]

Again, you’re saying it’s a daft technicality, it’s not.
As for the bloke you claimed “didn’t play well” yes he did, and he played by the rules.

Petrozzi played by the rules as well as far as I'm concerned. His integrity should not be questioned because he inadvertently raked a bunker that he didn't even go in for god's sake. If that makes him a cheat then lord help us.

 

[duncan mackie]

Petrozzi played by the rules as well as far as I'm concerned. His integrity should not be questioned because he inadvertently raked a bunker that he didn't even go in for god's sake. If that makes him a cheat then lord help us.

Who's questioning his integrity?
You are the first person to use the word cheat!

 

[duncan mackie]

If he breaks a rule deliberately to gain an advantage yes!

We clearly do live in a different world...

If someone breaks a rule deliberately to gain an advantage they will generally be disqualified (and possibly more).

If they inadvertently break a rule they get the penalty associated with that rule. The rule exists because a player either will, or may, gain an advantage by their actions. It's not complicated.

 

[Orikoru]

Who's questioning his integrity?
You are the first person to use the word cheat!

If you agree that he was correctly punished then that implies you believe he was improving his lie by ranking the bunker which would make him a cheat.

We clearly do live in a different world...

If someone breaks a rule deliberately to gain an advantage they will generally be disqualified (and possibly more).

If they inadvertently break a rule they get the penalty associated with that rule. The rule exists because a player either will, or may, gain an advantage by their actions. It's not complicated.

He didn't though.

 

[Imurg]

"[Orikoru, post: 1909417, member: 22581"]If you agree that he was correctly punished then that implies you believe he was improving his lie by ranking the bunker which would make him a cheat.


.[/QUOTE]

You're not a cheat just because you broke a rule.
Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules and not applying the relevent penalty.
If he didn't know the rule or he got the ruling mixed up then it's a massive leap to the "C" word

 

[Orikoru]

"[Orikoru, post: 1909417, member: 22581"]If you agree that he was correctly punished then that implies you believe he was improving his lie by ranking the bunker which would make him a cheat.


.

You're not a cheat just because you broke a rule.
Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules and not applying the relevent penalty.
If he didn't know the rule or he got the ruling mixed up then it's a massive leap to the "C" word

I was responding to this: "As for the bloke you claimed “didn’t play well” yes he did, and he played by the rules." Which I believe unfairly implied Petrozzi knowingly broke the rules.

Edit: You buggered up the quotes somehow

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I was responding to this: "As for the bloke you claimed “didn’t play well” yes he did, and he played by the rules." Which I believe unfairly implied Petrozzi knowingly broke the rules.

Edit: You buggered up the quotes somehow

I didn’t imply anything, you read my comment that way, Petrozzi held his hands up and accepted his error.
Yet you’ve claimed that officials should of ignored the rules and the other player that qualified should also feel bad.
So they should of cheated and been cheated to let Petrozzi through!

 

[duncan mackie]

If you agree that he was correctly punished then that implies you believe he was improving his lie by ranking the bunker which would make him a cheat.


He didn't though.

I am beginning to see why you don't have many satisfactory debates over the rules.

1. There's no such implication in my post. Of course you can infer what you wish from it. However, you are making that inference against your perception of the rules.

2. The only possible response to this it 'but he could have. Which is why the rule is there, and worded the way it is. As such it protects the field.

I was hoping to be able to follow a logical debate through on why the rule has to be like this but clearly that's not going to be possible. Shame.

I will now return my attention to how to explain to people that if they place their ball on the putting green, and then roll it into position in front of their marker, they will be subject to penalty from next year...

 

[Orikoru]

I didn’t imply anything, you read my comment that way, Petrozzi held his hands up and accepted his error.
Yet you’ve claimed that officials should of ignored the rules and the other player that qualified should also feel bad.
So they should of cheated and been cheated to let Petrozzi through!

No, they should have applied common sense and said "it would be poor form to penalise him for such a bloody stupid rule when he gained no advantage from it anyway" and everyone could have got on with their lives.

Just imagine if they'd have done that, do you think anyone would have even brought it up? Would there have been outrage that nobody penalised him for 'improving his lie'? I doubt it very much - I firmly believe that nobody would have batted an eye. The fact is their application of the rule has prompted news articles, such as the one linked in this topic, stating how it's a 'bizarre' rule and how hard done by the player is to have been penalised. If it was the other way around, I don't believe we would have seen articles saying how he got away with a flagrant disregard of the rules - at worst we might have seen one or two tweets from those of the more pedantic persuasion.

 

[Orikoru]

I am beginning to see why you don't have many satisfactory debates over the rules.

1. There's no such implication in my post. Of course you can infer what you wish from it. However, you are making that inference against your perception of the rules.

2. The only possible response to this it 'but he could have. Which is why the rule is there, and worded the way it is. As such it protects the field.

I was hoping to be able to follow a logical debate through on why the rule has to be like this but clearly that's not going to be possible. Shame.

I will now return my attention to how to explain to people that if they place their ball on the putting green, and then roll it into position in front of their marker, they will be subject to penalty from next year...

1. It wasn't your post it was Paul's. Everything isn't about you you know.
2. So we're punishing him for things that could've happened but didn't? He could have picked his ball up and thrown it onto the green but he didn't.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The difficulty here is that some are looking for logic in the rules. In some cases there are not. The golfer in this instance did not gain from his actions, he did not attempt to gain from his actions. He broke a rule so he is punished but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the question, 'if the golfer gains no advantage and no golfer is affected by their action then why does the rule exist?' Rules lovers may not read it that way but to the non golfer and perhaps to golfers who have come via other sports with a less complicated rule book it does not make golf look good at times, too many times.

 

[Sweep]

Have you actually read the rule?

Yes, but your reply is not helpful.