Rules changes over the past decade

[antip]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

A real rub of the green...

Yep, and a test of character.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, antip said:

Yep, and a test of character.

 

Indeed.

[Strategery]

On 4/9/2025 at 5:15 AM, Mr. Bean said:

Talk about fair. I was reading the Rules yesterday to prepare myself for the annual exam when I came accross with a Clarification that digs this fairness even deeper.

 

Your ball lies on the fairway in a divot hole. Another player makes a stroke at your ball (playes a wrong ball) and deepens that divot hole to some extent. Now, if there is no other divot hole similar to the original one within one club length no closer to hole you will have to place your ball into that deepened divot hole.

 

A real rub of the green...

Not sure if true, but if it is, it would be an obscure example of stupid golf rules and pedantry. I'm stifling a rant.

[Hawkeye77]

23 minutes ago, Strategery said:

Not sure if true, but if it is, it would be an obscure example of stupid golf rules and pedantry. I'm stifling a rant.

Come on - let it out!

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Strategery said:

Not sure if true, but if it is, it would be an obscure example of stupid golf rules and pedantry. I'm stifling a rant.

Have at it. It's been awhile since a "rules am stupid" character stumbled into the Rules folder. 😉

[Strategery]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Have at it. It's been awhile since a "rules am stupid" character stumbled into the Rules folder. 😉

Ah, your juvenile spam as expected. I thought I already waded in on my thoughts on your posts. Meh, you will join Hawkeye in the ignore bin where you belong.

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, Strategery said:

Ah, your juvenile spam as expected. I thought I already waded in on my thoughts on your posts. Meh, you will join Hawkeye in the ignore bin where you belong.

I'm honored. 😉

[bobfoster]

2 hours ago, Strategery said:

Ah, your juvenile spam as expected. I thought I already waded in on my thoughts on your posts. Meh, you will join Hawkeye in the ignore bin where you belong.

 

Um - that's certainly up to you, but Hawk and sui are kinda known as some of the most knowledgeable guys on WRX when it comes to the RoG.  

 

I'm an old timer here (both in 50+ years of golf, and WRX). Know the Rules pretty well. But I am always still learning. And (IMO) if you ever need an answer to some incredibly obscure interpretation of the RoG, sui is not someone you'd want on your ignore list (I know this from experience).

 

[Also (parenthetically)? I do not recognize your name, but it looks like you've been here for a long time. You know WRX. Over the years I've gotten into periodic dustups with more than one person - almost all of whom became friends. It's just the internet, and often it is hard to tell what is really meant by words - heck, I'm 76 and sometimes I come off as juvenile 😂. (Good grief, when LIV started there was almost a civil war here.) Okay, enough.]

 

Just sayin' ... hit 'em, straight man! 🏌️‍♀️

Edited April 11 by bobfoster

[Nels55]

My most hoped for rules change would be when taking relief to just drop the ball once and then place it if it rolls out of the drop area.  Everytime I make someone drop it twice because that's the rule I feel like a jerk.  Wasting time also rubs my driver personality the wrong way lol.

[Mr. Bean]

10 hours ago, Strategery said:

Not sure if true, but if it is, it would be an obscure example of stupid golf rules and pedantry. I'm stifling a rant.

 

1) Of course it is true, I would not have shared it with all of you if it was not. Read it yourself R14.2d(2)/1.

 

2) It is a good example of consistency of the RoG. You are entitled to the lie your stroke gave you, nothing more and nothing less. In an extreme case (like the one at hand) you get the lie most similar to the one your stroke gave you. Extremely consistent and equal.

[davep043]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

2) It is a good example of consistency of the RoG. You are entitled to the lie your stroke gave you, nothing more and nothing less. In an extreme case (like the one at hand) you get the lie most similar to the one your stroke gave you. Extremely consistent and equal.

For those who don't like this, you have to wonder what their preferred "solution" would be.  As you say, a Player is entitled to the conditions he had when his ball came to rest.  If the original lie is altered, you replace the ball in the most similar lie, with specific limits (area of the course, no nearer the hole, maximum distance).  Would they prefer that the Player be allowed to somehow "re-create" the original divot hole?  That seems reasonable in sand (14.2d(1)) because sand is easily moved, but not nearly so easy in the General Area.  Or would it be better to allow the Player to go some additional distance to find a similar divot hole?  How far?  Maybe the Player should be allowed to make a swing and create a new divot, but if that one is too deep, maybe he'll be allowed to take more swings until he gets one just right.  This is an extremely rare occurrence, I think the Clarification offers the best solution to a difficult situation.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

For those who don't like this, you have to wonder what their preferred "solution" would be.  

 

On the pristine fairway, of course. That's what all those rules-am-stupid persons say.

[Hawkeye77]

15 hours ago, bobfoster said:

 

Um - that's certainly up to you, but Hawk and sui are kinda known as some of the most knowledgeable guys on WRX when it comes to the RoG.  

 

I'm an old timer here (both in 50+ years of golf, and WRX). Know the Rules pretty well. But I am always still learning. And (IMO) if you ever need an answer to some incredibly obscure interpretation of the RoG, sui is not someone you'd want on your ignore list (I know this from experience).

 

[Also (parenthetically)? I do not recognize your name, but it looks like you've been here for a long time. You know WRX. Over the years I've gotten into periodic dustups with more than one person - almost all of whom became friends. It's just the internet, and often it is hard to tell what is really meant by words - heck, I'm 76 and sometimes I come off as juvenile 😂. (Good grief, when LIV started there was almost a civil war here.) Okay, enough.]

 

Just sayin' ... hit 'em, straight man! 🏌️‍♀️

 

LOL, you're right re @sui generis and a few others, too generous my way. Like you I think, I just try to learn them out of interest, like the analysis, a little research and interpretation, carried a little pocket Rules in my bag way, way, back but I'll let the pros handle the Rules quiz type stuff - makes my head hurt.  I have to laugh at remembering answering one of those toughies off the cuff (and I was right! and truth be told it was probably the only one, haha) and then I had a certain poster I respect and almost love, but who likes to be a cranky pain, jump all over me because I just gave the answer and didn't have some two paragraph explanation - you show your work in my wife's Geometry II class, lol.  Pissed him off I got it right but wanted to make me know my answer wasn't legit if I didn't share, haha, not letting someone copy my work!  Fun times!

 

The only thing that seems to unite overall is a pretty cool reaction to the silly, "Golf just isn't fair to me" suggestions for Rules changes that don't really grasp the history of the game and the evolution of the Rules.

 

Having said that, I'm still "upset" over the change to the OB rule and a couple of other USGA wants to look popular and friendly rules changes.  But hit into a divot scrape the two times you'll probably do it all year in our group whine away, but play it as it lies!  Social media is awash with all the popular rules whines and seems to reflect a lot of stupidity from people that never play by the rules anyway - I've got grass trying to grow right now in the back yard and they all need to stay off it!

 

 

 

 

[davep043]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The only thing that seems to unite overall is a pretty cool reaction to the silly, "Golf just isn't fair to me" suggestions for Rules changes that don't really grasp the history of the game and the evolution of the Rules.

To me, many (most?) suggestions for changes just don't take into account the amazing coordination and consistency between the various parts of the rules.  History and evolution are important, the basic principles of the game are important, and the limited ways in which the rules allow exceptions are important, but the more I learn the more I realize how well the rules all fit together.