+- Discussion (http://simplegolfrules.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discussion (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Code One (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Code One General Comments (/showthread.php?tid=14)
Code One General Comments - DocMiller - 08-08-2013 05:02 PM
David, John,
Congratulations on this effort, as it is a welcomed bold step—well done.
My thoughts, mostly dug up from past discussions from Rules seminars, etc. are nothing new. So here is a brief list:
General, Item I: Why not take your approach to bunker play all the way and include such areas as through the green? Equate play from a bunker to that associated with waste areas (think Pinehurst #2). The only difference left between current restrictions for bunkers and your proposed Code One seems to be the prohibition for making a practice swing and/or testing the surface. Do I really gain significantly if I make a practice swing in a bunker vs. in a waste bunker? If you accept that then you could essentially eliminate much of the definition for a bunker. I would still address the post stroke smoothing of sand, loose soil in the etiquette section as well as keeping the unplayable, abnormal ground conditions, etc. options for secondary relief unchanged.
1. Match vs. Stroke Play. Take all current Loss-of-hole penalties and make them instead 2-stroke penalties. In Match Play, I have a chance to still halve or even win the hole even if I knock one OB or hit it in the water a couple of times. Don’t take me out of a hole just because I hit a wrong ball or an inch forward of the tee markers. Loss of hole penalties for match play should instead be paired with many stroke play DQ penalties. For example an uncorrected serious breach for wrong place in stroke play would be DQ while in match play LoH. Likewise, I like your approach from Code Two vis-à-vis play of a wrong ball. No penalty, provided the player plays the correct ball. Failure to correct is LoH/DQ. I did notice you modified the penalty statement in Rule 4 concerning the penalty for match play with no reference to “status of the match”. This change would dovetail easily into my suggestion above by adding (a max of) two strokes to each of the first two holes instead.
2. R3-3, Doubt as to Procedure. What is the thought process behind the reworking of this section? Specifically, allowing the competitor to discontinue play of one of the two balls (Note 3) seems to introduce an unnecessary complication to an already poorly understood Rule.
3. What is behind the reasoning for eliminating the current Match Play exception under Rule 6-8a? I feel this is a valid and reasonable consideration for most matches at the club level.
4. Consider incorporating R7, Note 2 into the definition of “course”.
5. Let’s simplify Rule 9, Order of Play, During the Play of Hole. For both match and stroke play, when a ball may be played from a spot other than where the previous stroke was made, the order of play should be determined by the position from where the player must, or chooses to play his next stroke. This is the way most people believe it is supposed to be done, so let’s do it this way. It should not be complicated to the point of needing a diagram in the Decisions Book.
6. Rule 10. Is using a non-conforming tee or teeing a ball in a manner not permitted by the Rules deserving of a penalty of disqualification, rather than simply a 2-stroke penalty?
7. R12--I would adopt your reasoning from Code Two as it applies to searching for a ball. As a result of the search if the ball moves, there should be no penalty. Either replace the ball or proceed under an applicable Rule.
If we were to adopt a no-penalty approach for playing a wrong ball, there would be less need to lift a ball for identification. However, at some point, the player might need to know the ball is in fact his if it were not obvious from direct observation. We still need a structure for identifying, but I think having go through the 4 or 5 steps we currently use is a silly routine. How about, mark, lift, identify and replace without any cleaning beyond necessary…then replace. Any failure to first mark or excess cleaning is a 1-stroke penalty. Same reasoning if he fails to replace on the same spot. Only a 1-stroke penalty as could be the result if he at first he fails to mark.
8. Your treatment of Loose Impediments – THANK YOU! Finally, somebody actually said it in writing rather than just playing lip service in class. Now to 13-6. What is so wrong with taking a practice swing in a bunker or more to the point, in a water hazard? Remember Bill Hass in the FedEx Cup with that shot from the water on 17? The announcers are saying, “Nobody ever practices this shot.” Which is true for 99.9% of us. So if you are faced with something like that, so unusual, what Principle are we threatening if we permit the player to make a practice swing that might or might not assist his application of skill? Provided I play the ball as it lies, have I gained an undue advantage if I make a practice swing and touch sand, mud, grass, gorse or water? I may well learn it best that I proceed with relief. Again, I would like to see you remove bunkers from the hazard inclusion and place them through the green like waste areas are currently.
9. Your R14 is a good example of where I would apply previously suggested changes. Penalty for improper ball substitution for both forms of play – two strokes. For a wrong ball, no penalty, but the player must correct. Failure to correct in stroke play is a DQ, failure to correct in Match play, LoH.
10 R17-2b, Exception: just a general observation, why isn’t gravity included as some other agency? Sometimes, even a ball replaced on the putting green simply moves as the grass underneath gives way to the pull of gravity. It is “known” when there is direct observation. It is “virtually certain” when all other reasonable possibilities are eliminated. Sometimes the strength of the grass simply times out. Gravity is equally as relentless a force as the wind or water. Since wind cannot be directly observed, it need not receive more credit than does gravity.
11. R18-5b, Ball striking Ball, Both Balls on Putting Green: Rules that are written to contend with the extremes are not always logical. A ball in motion, after a stroke on the putting green, strikes another ball which is at rest, and regardless the relationship between the owners of the balls, we currently assign a 2-stroke penalty for stroke play and you recommend including a LoH for match play as well. Why should this be anything more than a 1-stroke penalty? How is this any more critical than striking the equipment of another player? For that matter, I question the wisdom of assigning a two stroke penalty for striking a flagstick when attended for the same reason. From the severity of this penalty, it appears the thinking is that striking another ball or the flagstick yields some great advantage. I don’t see it. For my thinking, a 1-stroke penalty and playing the ball as it lies is penalty/deterrence enough. It dovetails with the Principle: The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation. What advantage is to be gained from striking another ball that would cause me to risk even a 1-stroke penalty? I’m sure you can come up with an extreme example, but as long as we are discussing a revamp, we should examine penalties like these.
12. R19-1. This Rule parallels my previous discussion on your Rule 12-1. If a player lifts a ball that must be replaced without first marking the ball, he incurs a 1-stroke penalty. OK, fine: but if the position of the ball is not marked how can we possibly say with any knowledge or virtual certainty that he in fact replaces the ball on the original spot? How could we say he did not, there is no marked point of reference? Would it not be reasonable to argue that every time a player lifts a ball without first marking, he is more likely to be subject to the 2-stroke penalty for not replacing on the original spot (wrong place) than the chance he will be as precise as if he had marked instead?
But that is not the approach we take. Should we not assume, if he does not first mark the ball before lifting, that he will miss the precise original spot of the ball and for that assign a 1-stroke penalty? It is not a wrong place penalty, but a failure to follow procedure penalty. Perhaps only if the player purposely places a ball in other than the required proximity to the original spot, a two stroke penalty should be applied?
In a related discussion, I also find consternation with the specific case of a player who has marked his ball on the putting green, moved his mark as a courtesy to another player, and then forgot to replace the mark before playing. The associated 2-stroke penalty in this circumstance seems overly harsh as would applying a two stroke penalty to a player who lifted without marking, then wasn’t sure where to replace the ball. I would like to see some additional discussion on this whole business of wrong place.
13. Good idea to eliminate all dropping when putting a ball back into play. Any thought of incorporating your Code Two concept of “Standard Relief” into Code One?
14. In a match, my ball rests about two feet beyond the flagstick. My opponent’s ball is off the green. I go to mark and lift my ball because I think it could assist my opponent in his play, but he tells me not to, as he wants to play. What Code One Rule would you cite that resolves this situation?
15. R21-1. For the sake of consistency, if a ball does not lie on the obstruction, before removing the obstruction, to insure the ball is properly replaced if moved, shouldn’t the position of the ball first be marked?
16. R21-2. You need to do some more convincing on why you removed line of putt relief from abnormal ground conditions. My experience is that, on more than an infrequent basis, the need for line of putt relief from both GUR and casual water is a consideration. While we are at it, you should also grant line of putt relief for immovable obstructions. There is the occasional situation where a player, because of the contours of the green, may need to putt the ball into the fringe, where interference with sprinkler head or other maintenance feature creates unwanted issues.
17. The need for the Local Rule for a Ball Played Provisionally under R24-1 (currently 26-1) clearly exists. I noticed you did not include it in your Appendix. I would also address a solution for maintaining the design integrity of some holes by allowing for a Local Rule that could restrict the R24 options available on specific holes or to specific hazard margins or even from specific teeing grounds. Restriction of any one option would mandate the addition of Placing Zones. As another participant suggested previously, a Local Rule for dropping on the opposite margin is also a good idea.
18. Consider adopting the Ball Unplayable aspects from Code Two into Code One as it relates to a ball in a water hazard. Why not? It gives the player an additional option for dealing with his burning of a stroke.
19. One last general comment. It would be nice if we could find a common rule of thumb for the vertical margins of hazards, abnormal ground conditions, OB, etc. For example: if my ball strikes the branches of a tree, which is rooted on the far side of a water hazard outside the hazard, and after the ball rattles around in the tree ends up plopping in the hazard, I have no fair way of determining if my ball actually broke the opposite plane of the margin. The descriptive determination of the tree is cut by the vertical plane of the water hazard, creating two separate parts of the tree. However, a similar tree, when associated with an adjacent GUR area is either deemed all inside or all outside the GUR for the purpose of granting relief, except the roots are treated differently than the branches. If the goal is simplification for the masses, it would be nice to dumb this margin business down to something that the average person can remember.
Gentlemen, your body of work is a very welcomed event. I congratulate you on this endeavor. It is obvious to one who has studied the Rules for a couple of decades how much time and thought you have volunteered for the betterment of the game. My comments have been primarily directed at your Code One work as I view it as a more probably candidate for adoption. However, I find several of the concepts contained in Code Two to be very intriguing and I need to spend more time with that work to feel confident enough to make intelligent comments. I am particularly upbeat about finding a way to adopt your Code Two scoring into something I and my colleagues could adopt as an alternate play format. Great stuff!
Best regards,
Richard “Doc” Miller
Cary, NC
RE: Code One General Comments - John Morrissett - 08-09-2013 09:08 AM
Doc -
We are flattered that you have taken the time to go through Code One so closely. Thank you for doing so and for your specific comments - that is exactly what we want from this Discussion Group.
First, the general comment that David and I did not envision some changes in Code Two as being exclusive to that code (except where the changes are dependent on the points system integral to Code Two). Therefore, it is certainly possible to create, in effect, a Code Three, that would take the changes in Code Two that are independent of the scoring system. In the spirit of this project (simplicity), David and I thought that two codes are enough for now to present the ideas, but don't let that stop you from picking and choosing your favorite elements of each code.
Some comments on your thoughts:
(1) Match play penalties: It is certainly tempting to make the general penalty in match play two strokes as well, as doing so would eliminate a separate penalty structure. In the early 1980s the R&A and USGA looked at doing so and ultimately decided against it as it was felt there are a few situations where a two-stroke penalty in match play would not be sufficient (e.g., wrong information). One reason we retained the loss of hole penalty is that it allows for quite simple rulings (much simpler than those in stroke play, esp. when a correction is required). There was then the question of whether having a more uniform penalty structure outweighs the simplicity of loss of hole rulings - a touch call.
You were good to pick up on the removal of the status of match penalties. It seemed to us that the main benefit of the status of match penalties is that they ensured that a player would be penalized for certain breaches (e.g., that a player would not effectively escape penalty for starting the round with too many clubs if he also lost the first hole because of poor play). However, our experience has been that the concept of adjusting the state of the match is not well understood, defies reason (how can a player be two down after one hole??) and adds a layer to the penalty structure in match play. We felt that the prospect of a player getting "lucky" (if you call it that) and avoiding a penalty because already lost the hole because of his play was acceptable in view of the benefits.
(2) With Rule 3-3, we certainly agree that the current Rule is not well understood - our goal was to improve and simplify it. We thought that introducing the term "selected ball" would help with the readability of the Rule. We were also concerned that not all the outcomes from Decision 3-3/0.5 can be reached from the current Rule, and we expanded the Rule to do so.
Note 3 was added to address the fairly common question of whether a player is required to hole out with both balls and just moves the message of Decision 3-3/8 into the Rule itself.
(3) We removed the current Exception to Rule 6-8a as (a) in general, the fewer Exceptions the better and (b) our experience has been that such a provision is used very rarely.
(4) That is a fair suggestion. We decided to go the Note route as its only applicability is in Rule 7 (so the information is closer to the relevant Rule).
(5) With the order of play when a player is not to play his ball as it lies, this is a good example of the trade-off between what is perhaps philosophically desirable and what is easy to understand. David and I were bothered enough by the prospect of (a) letting a player manipulate the order of play based on the relief option he chooses and (b) having the order of play be dependent on his decision (which in effect forces him to make a decision before his opponent plays, which seems odd) that we retained the current procedure.
(6) Use of a non-conforming tee: As it can be difficult and/or unwise to quantify a possible advantage gained through the use of a non-conforming piece of equipment (whether a club, ball, artificial device, or tee), David and I believe it continues to make sense to provide for a penalty of disqualification. Such a penalty also provides zero incentive for a player to use such a piece of non-conforming equipment. For example, if some miracle tee were developed that would allow a player to drive the ball 400 yards, some players might be willing to accept a two-stroke penalty each time they use the tee.
More later.
Thanks again.
John
(7) That section of Code Two could be introduced to Code One. The current procedure for identifying a ball is cumbersome, and, if there is no penalty for playing a wrong ball, a player does not really need to lift a ball for identification.
(8) We are glad you like the change regarding loose impediments. As for retaining the prohibition against testing the condition of a hazard with a practice swing (though note we narrowed the prohibited methods of testing), we were concerned with the practical aspect of allowing practice swings (i.e., that bunkers would have more of their sand deposited outside bunkers).
(9) Understood.
(10) I will let David address your gravity concern as he can explain the view better than I can.
(11) New Rule 18-5: We believe there should be a penalty to discourage players from leaving a ball near the hole when it might assist another player. Current Rule 19-5a works well in that regard in stroke play as it is in the best interest of the player putting to have the other ball lifted. We introduced a penalty in match play to eliminate a difference between the two forms of play that causes some confusion.
(12) I am not sure I follow all of your thinking. If a player does not mark the location of his ball when required to do so, a one-stroke penalty makes sense. True, in many cases it is unlikely that he could replace the ball on the correct spot in such a situation, but there are provisions in the Rules telling him how to proceed when he does not know where to replace a ball. To me, the general penalty for playing from a wrong place seems appropriate, in part as a one-stroke penalty would significantly weaken the unplayable ball Rule (an undesirable result, in my opinion).
(13) The "standard relief" from Code Two could be incorporated into Code One. We're glad you like the elimination of dropping; that one change simplifies an awful lot.
(14) New Rule 15-1a entitles you to lift your ball from the putting green.
(15) Requiring the marking of the location of a ball before a movable obstruction is removed could yield some strange penalties (e.g., if the ball is one foot away from the obstruction).
(16) No relief for just intervention on the line of putt: While this situation certainly arises occasionally (esp. with casual water), we thought that the current Rule granting relief (a) creates different results for different parts of the course (e.g., a ball one inch off the putting green is treated very differently from a ball lying on the putting green, even though each faces essentially the same situation), (b) leads to some confusion away from the putting green as to whether there is relief for intervention, and © is not that well understood. Denying intervention relief does simplify things, and the question is whether people believe the gained simplification is worth the new results.
(17) David and I are not fans of the current Local Rule for a provisional ball for a ball that may be in a water hazard. We have fielded way too many questions from Committees that (a) adopt the Local Rule when they should not have and/or (b) apply in incorrectly. More than anything, we just really do not like the idea of giving the player a choice as to which ball to play.
As for relief from water hazards, we strongly caution against going down the Local Rule path as we believe Local Rules contribute to the current confusion about the Rules. The fewer Local Rules, the better.
(18) Certainly possible.
(19) Good point about margins. There has to be a better way.
RE: Code One General Comments - DavidHayes - 08-09-2013 02:37 PM
"Gravity is equally as relentless a force as the wind or water. Since wind cannot be directly observed, it need not receive more credit than does gravity."
Wind and water can't hold a candle to gravity in terms of relentlessness - that darn thing never goes away - and that's why they are treated differently. I'll change my mind as soon as a golf ball is struck by a sudden gust of gravity.
RE: Code One General Comments - Simonko - 08-10-2013 01:29 AM
(08-08-2013 05:02 PM)DocMiller Wrote: 10 R17-2b, Exception: just a general observation, why isn’t gravity included as some other agency? Sometimes, even a ball replaced on the putting green simply moves as the grass underneath gives way to the pull of gravity. It is “known” when there is direct observation. It is “virtually certain” when all other reasonable possibilities are eliminated. Sometimes the strength of the grass simply times out. Gravity is equally as relentless a force as the wind or water. Since wind cannot be directly observed, it need not receive more credit than does gravity.
Apart from gravity being constant throughout, I'd suggest it isn't an exception (both in the revised 18-2b/11 and in Code One) because the possibility that movement was due to the grounded club can't be sufficiently eliminated for VC to be established.
RE: Code One General Comments - Toni - 08-10-2013 04:34 AM
In addition to the note in rule 3-3, why should the score with the first ball played count and not the score with original ball? The player first responsibility is for playing his ball in play (original ball) correctly.