Colin L
Tour Winner
It's just a Mulligan with a difference ......... a penalty stroke difference.
Unplayable lie. Is it acceptable or frowned upon?
- Thread starter Jay Gee
- Start date
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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.
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Major Champion
How about not nearer the hole?
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
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.
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
Journeyman Pro
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
Major Champion
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
Ryder Cup Winner
And for what it's worth, I agree with Bob
bobmac
Major Champion
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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.
Last edited:
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Woohoo, a 2 man campaign
Make that 3!!
bobmac
Major Champion
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
Money List Winner
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
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!
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
Ryder Cup Winner
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
Money List Winner
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
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
Major Champion
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
Journeyman Pro
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?
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
Major Champion
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
Blackballed
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.
