Unplayable lie. Is it acceptable or frowned upon?

[CMAC]

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]

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

Or she if you're being pedantic

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

 

[Colin L]

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]

Or she if you're being pedantic

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

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

chaos.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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]

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)?

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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!

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

checkmate!

 

[bobmac]

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?

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.