daymond
Tour Rookie
If snooker players are allowed to have the white ball cleaned, why should we not be allowed to remove a pile of mud off ours, on the fairway, at time other than 'winter rules'.
What Laws Would You Change?!
- Thread starter lofty1019
- Start date
Foxholer
Blackballed
Fixed that for you!
For me: Should be able to repair spike marks - as per pitch marks.
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Apart from rule 8-1b that is. The definition of partner being crucial. If you're playing a pairs match you can ask your team mate or either of your caddies, if it singles you can't ask advice from your playing partners or anyone else except your caddy
rosecott
Money List Winner
If it is singles, you do not have any partners.
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Strictly speaking no you don't but you often hear people use the term partnes or playing partners to describe the players in their group, which is why I said the definition Of partner was important.
rosecott
Money List Winner
At the considerable risk of being accused of being pedantic, the word you are looking for is "fellow-competitor". Any mention of partner can only lead to rules confusion.
viscount17
Money List Winner
change any rule that is based on opinion eg like the one changed in the new rule book where you can tidy a bunker so long as you aren't testing the surface
I'd also make stones in bunkers a moveable obstruction
I'd also make stones in bunkers a moveable obstruction
rosecott
Money List Winner
The rules allow committees to make a rule defining stones in bunkers as movable obstructions - most clubs where this is a problem have such a local rule.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Penalty drop from a flooded bunker. It is not my fault that the course suffers from rubbish drainage, so why am I penalised?
viscount17
Money List Winner
that is part of the problem - most, or rather some, do - others do not. to me it's a safety issue and there is no valid reason that I can see for it to be at a committees discretion.
rosecott
Money List Winner
Spot on - it's a safety issue, so your committee is failing in its duty of care if stones in bunkers are an issue. There are courses where it is not an issue.
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
All women should pay the same as men.
JustOne
Ryder Cup Winner
I think that's a good rule, perhaps you might want to try avoiding them Murph
They are hazards after all
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
I think that's a good rule, perhaps you might want to try avoiding them Murph
They are hazards after all
I am thinking specifically of a bunker at Sandy Lodge. There are three, just short of the green. All three flood every winter. Two get marked out as gur, with a drop zone. One does not. None of them should be gur, as there has been no attempt to repair them for the last 5 years. For some reason, I always end up in the odd one. This is rubbish course construction, and rubbish maintenance. They are well sited, but I am getting penalised for poor course construction.
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
In the context of rules requiring subjective judgements I was surprised to read this when checking out the rules on provsional balls
Decision 27-2b/4 Provisional Ball Played from Beyond Where Original Ball Likely to Be But Not Beyond Where Original Ball Found
"Q. A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or in a road defined as out of bounds, played a provisional ball. He searched for his original ball but did not find it. He went forward and played his provisional ball. Then he went farther forward and found his original ball in bounds. The original ball must have bounced down the road and then come back into bounds, because it was found much farther from the tee than anticipated. Was the original ball still the ball in play?
A. No. The player played a stroke with the provisional ball from a point nearer the hole than the place where the original ball was likely to be. When he did so, the provisional ball became the ball in play and the original ball was lost (Rule 27-2b). The place where the original ball in fact lay was irrelevant."
I would not have guessed that the subjective opinion as to where the ball was likely to be took precedence over where the ball actually was - seems wrong to me. If the first ball is found within 5 mins it should still be the ball in play in my opinion.
Decision 27-2b/4 Provisional Ball Played from Beyond Where Original Ball Likely to Be But Not Beyond Where Original Ball Found
"Q. A player, believing his tee shot might be lost or in a road defined as out of bounds, played a provisional ball. He searched for his original ball but did not find it. He went forward and played his provisional ball. Then he went farther forward and found his original ball in bounds. The original ball must have bounced down the road and then come back into bounds, because it was found much farther from the tee than anticipated. Was the original ball still the ball in play?
A. No. The player played a stroke with the provisional ball from a point nearer the hole than the place where the original ball was likely to be. When he did so, the provisional ball became the ball in play and the original ball was lost (Rule 27-2b). The place where the original ball in fact lay was irrelevant."
I would not have guessed that the subjective opinion as to where the ball was likely to be took precedence over where the ball actually was - seems wrong to me. If the first ball is found within 5 mins it should still be the ball in play in my opinion.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Surprised that many of these are "laws of the game", hope there is no trial soon.
Personally the divot rule is the one most encountered, proper course maintainence from the competitors would all but eradicate this though
Personally the divot rule is the one most encountered, proper course maintainence from the competitors would all but eradicate this though
User 105
Journeyman Pro
Divot rule to me seems to be grossly unfair, so does the spike marks on the green. I'd probably go for those two.
I've always thought rules should be there to either punish bad play or illegal actions in the context of the game.
Where the above two seem to penalise bad luck.
I've always thought rules should be there to either punish bad play or illegal actions in the context of the game.
Where the above two seem to penalise bad luck.
Pro Zach
Assistant Pro
I'd scrap the handicap allowance in competitions. The conditions and rules should be the same for everyone, to allow a fair competition. Playing under different rules to fellow competitors makes the 'competition' a farce.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
That would make you really popular, and reduce the entrants down to about 10 people. That not really what golf is all about.
You need to play tennis.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Divot rule to me seems to be grossly unfair, so does the spike marks on the green. I'd probably go for those two.
I've always thought rules should be there to either punish bad play or illegal actions in the context of the game.
Where the above two seem to penalise bad luck.
I agree with the divot rule, and the spike mark rule. Every one always wants a perfect lie, and will define every little hollow, or bald patch, or tight lie as being in an old divot. It would become pnp all year round.
For the spike marks, each player could be equipped with an iron and their own personal roller. Every line of putt would be inspected microscopically for any imperfection before the player putts. It would take ages.
Similar threads
