Double Penalty for Out of Bounds

[cnosil]

7 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Perhaps I missed it but Who here said anything about not questioning the rules?

It is don't question the people that question the rules 

[Stuka44]

2 minutes ago, blackngold_blood said:

Perhaps I missed it but Who here said anything about not questioning the rules?

Round and Round:  Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", are met with comparisons to wanting everyone to hit the ball the same distance, and a lucky bounce off a tree needs to be codified, KINDA sounds like How dare you question a rule of golf!

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW!

[TR1PTIK]

25 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

COMMANDMENT:  XI

THOU SHALT NOT EVER QUESTION THE RULES OF GOLF!!!

Sorry everyone I must have missed this one in my 12 years of Catholic School!  

I could have brought this to a stop a long time ago.

Alright, alright... There's enough urine on the floor at this point for @LICC to lose a golf ball so time to up the ante:

[Stuka44]

3 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Alright, alright... There's enough urine on the floor at this point for @LICC to lose a golf ball so time to up the ante:

Now see that's funny stuff!  That's the attitude the USGA & R&A need to have.  Realize that the survival of planet earth does not hang in the balance of the rules.

[GolfSpy_BNG]

6 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW

No it isn’t above being joked about. Perhaps a funny face or laughing emoji would have been a better way to show it was a joke other than a smart a$$ post in all caps?

[GolfSpy_BNG]

9 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Round and Round:  Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", are met with comparisons to wanting everyone to hit the ball the same distance, and a lucky bounce off a tree needs to be codified, KINDA sounds like How dare you question a rule of golf!

AND C'MON THE COMMANDMENT THING WAS FUNNY, GOLF IS ABOVE BEING JOKED ABOUT NOW!

Also I never said anything about questioning the rules but will say this, if you immediately deem everyone else’s opinions as illogical and stomp your feet basically demanding people to prove you wrong, don’t expect them to not do the same with smart a$$ replies. 

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Oh I don't know, maybe not directly, but the fact that a couple of us don't agree that because the rule itself and those who made the rule, define what the penalty IS PRESENTLY, just may not be all of the reason necessary, and don't find the the argument about "off property damage" an even remotely plausible reason, are merely suggesting that it may be "better" or more "fair", 

How does changing the penalty make the game "better" and more "fair"?   Why is treating an areas of the course differently a bad thing?    Is the problem that there is only one option for relief?  Would making the new drop rule an official rule make it better?   

 

[TR1PTIK]

2 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Now see that's funny stuff!  That's the attitude the USGA & R&A need to have.  Realize that the survival of planet earth does not hang in the balance of the rules.

Thank you. To be fair, I was torn on posting it as I wasn't sure how to take your post - I originally interpreted it the same as @blackngold_blood . I'm glad you clarified so we could get a little more light hearted in this thread.  

[Stuka44]

7 minutes ago, cnosil said:

How does changing the penalty make the game "better" and more "fair"?   Why is treating an areas of the course differently a bad thing?    Is the problem that there is only one option for relief?  Would making the new drop rule an official rule make it better?   

 

Wow! My idea of what is "better" for the game, and would make the game more "fair" are clearly different than yours.  "Fair" and "better" and "just" are ever changing "concepts".  It is not science where a water molecule always contains 2 parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen.

Separate but Equal was a rule!  Some thought it was great, some didn't, and it was changed.  Up until 1980 in the United States you could shoot a "fleeing felon" until the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Tennessee v. Garner, agreed with the 15 year olds family that perhaps apprehending someone who was not dangerous to anyone, by shooting them dead, maybe wasn't a good rule. Sports is no different!

Nobody can absolutely prove, better, or fair!  The idea is to be open to the concept that a rule, IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, UNTIL IT ISN'T.  And more than likely there will be no absolute science behind, why the people who thought the rule was great, were overruled, and it was changed.

AND THE VIDEO AND THE 10 COMMANDMENT THINGS WERE FUNNY!  GOLF RULES JUST AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT!

 

[GolfSpy_BNG]

7 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

My idea of what is "better" for the game, and would make the game more "fair" are clearly different than yours.  "Fair" and "better" and "just" are ever changing "concepts".

And this should sum up this whole thread. Just lock it up cuz it is a never ending circle jerk between “the old stuffy traditionalists” and “the young progressive future of the game types”

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for the love of all things holy, stop getting butt hurt when someone dismisses your opinion AFTER you have already dismissed theirs!

[cnosil]

12 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Wow! My idea of what is "better" for the game, and would make the game more "fair" are clearly different than yours.  "Fair" and "better" and "just" are ever changing "concepts".  It is not science where a water molecule always contains 2 parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen.

 

And I don't think anyone in this thread would complain if the rule was changed.  As we know there was a local rule added to help speed up play associated with stroke and distance penalties.  I think was a good change and wouldn't be opposed if it was added to the official rules.   You chose the terms better and fair to describe the opposite position associate with S&D for OB.   Why would reducing the penalty to one stroke be better and fair?   Help explain why the rule is wrong and needs to be changed.  What is your concept;  how would you write the rule.  If it is simply to make OB a penalty area,  are you okay with players swinging a club in that area; essentially no protection for private property (I am not talking about a ball hitting a house or breaking a window as a result of the shot;  responsibility for that damage would be a different thread)  and potentially enabling trespassing;

[LICC]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

why is the USGA's document on this specific topic not valid and logical reasoning?   Logic is about comparing various options and choosing the one that is considered the best based on the presented information.  Essentially the analysis of arguments.  In the document they identified the various points of view and the reasoning why they didn't chose those option.   Your choosing not to accept the decision does not make it unfair,  illogical, or not valid.   

As I have stated several times,  I understand your perspective but I believe that rule changes should be made with the intention of improving the game.   You ask for logic and fairness,  making the penalty one stroke doesn't make it any more logical or fair as the rule would be equally applied.  How about going the other way and making all penalties 2 strokes; especially if you go in the water.   Is that more fair and logical?

 In an earlier post I made all kinds of stupid statements about things that could be changed in the rules and you came up with all kinds of illogical reasons why they shouldn't be changed.  Not agreeing with a statement doesn't make the statement illogical or unfair.  It simply is an opinion.  

You claim that you are being attacked for your views.   People have responded with their views yet you quickly dismiss them as being invalid and illogical which creates the tension that you see in this thread.    

You are mixing up fairness, harshness, and logic. I addressed the USGA statements. They were conclusory statements without valid logic. Basically the same things that you and others keep repeating because, I guess, you just can't come up with actual reasoning and you just want to attack the questioner instead. 

Applying the same double penalty to both situations, e.g. two strokes or stroke and distance, would be logically valid and fair but overly harsh. Applying different penalties, e.g., stroke only for one but stroke and distance for the other, is both illogical and unfair, but only harsh for the severe penalty.

You seem to think that any stated view defending this OB rule should just be accepted and end all discussion, no matter now devoid of reasoning. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it valid.

Edited May 6, 2021 by LICC

[Chip Strokes]

Just now, LICC said:

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it valid.

hey, can you read that back for me?

[TR1PTIK]

Just now, Chip Strokes said:

hey, can you read that back for me?

This response is so much better than the one I was cooking up. 

[cnosil]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

You are mixing up fairness, harshness, and logic. I addressed the USGA statements. They were conclusory statements without valid logic. Basically the same things that you and others keep repeating because, I guess, you just can't come up with actual reasoning and you just want to attack the questioner instead. 

Applying the same penalty to both situations, e.g. two strokes or stroke and distance, would be logically valid and fair but overly harsh. Applying different penalties, e.g., stroke only for one but stroke and distance for the other, is both illogical and unfair, but only harsh for the severe penalty.

You seem to think that any stated view defending this OB rule should just be accepted and end all discussion, no matter now devoid of reasoning. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it valid.

What is valid logic???   Logic is looking at the various arguments and making a determination based on the information.    Explain why the rule is unfair;  using the ball at the bottom of a lake isn't a valid reason as it is simply a penalty area and if conditions allow it can be played.  

Why is it illogical to treat areas of a golf course differently and have different penalties.   Stroke and distance is an option for a penalty area.   If the local rule that allowed the player to drop at the point it crossed OB was made an official rule you would be fine with the 2 stroke penalty?   If that is your position I am fine with that rule change. 

 

[LICC]

1 hour ago, blackngold_blood said:

No it isn’t above being joked about. Perhaps a funny face or laughing emoji would have been a better way to show it was a joke other than a smart a$$ post in all caps?

If you didn't think he was meaning to be humorous, did you think that @stuka44 really believed that he was Moses revealing a new commandment?

[CarlH]

37 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

 

AND THE VIDEO AND THE 10 COMMANDMENT THINGS WERE FUNNY!  GOLF RULES JUST AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT!

 

Kind of difficult to have a competitive game without standards.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

How does changing the penalty make the game "better" and more "fair"?   Why is treating an areas of the course differently a bad thing?    Is the problem that there is only one option for relief?  Would making the new drop rule an official rule make it better?   

 

It makes the game better by removing from the rules an illogical inconsistency. It makes it more fair by removing an overly harsh penalty and by equalizing the penalties for the same bad swing and the same effective result.

[CarlH]

16 minutes ago, LICC said:

 Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it valid.

Nor does denying it over and over again make it any less valid.  Just because you choose not to accept something doesn't make it invalid or illogical--you just have a differing opinion.  Your refusal to accept that anyone can have a valid opinion not in line with your own opinions is just plain arrogant.

[LICC]

13 minutes ago, cnosil said:

What is valid logic???   Logic is looking at the various arguments and making a determination based on the information.    Explain why the rule is unfair;  using the ball at the bottom of a lake isn't a valid reason as it is simply a penalty area and if conditions allow it can be played.  

Why is it illogical to treat areas of a golf course differently and have different penalties.   Stroke and distance is an option for a penalty area.   If the local rule that allowed the player to drop at the point it crossed OB was made an official rule you would be fine with the 2 stroke penalty?   If that is your position I am fine with that rule change. 

 

Logic requires that a conclusion must be the result of its premises. The soundness of an argument requires that its premises be true and accurate. You are constantly providing conclusions without sound premises (or any premises), or conclusions that are not supported by sound premises.

If OB and PA had the same double penalty, I would not call it illogical, but I would call it overly harsh and a bad rule for that reason.

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

It makes the game better by removing from the rules an illogical inconsistency. It makes it more fair by removing an overly harsh penalty and by equalizing the penalties for the same bad swing and the same effective result.

So if you make the same bad swing and it somehow finds the bottom of the hole, then what? You're trying to make an argument that equally bad swings should therefore be equally penalized, but that just isn't how it works. The rules clearly define both OB and Penalty Areas including how they should be marked, options for relief, and how penalties should be assessed. They are two completely different things for all intents and purposes of the game.

I'm not saying the rule can't be changed, but you've completely failed to recognize how the game of golf and its rules (or any other sport and its rules) are constructed.

You're contentions are completely irrational and based purely on an emotional response as revealed by your numerous objections to any differing points of view. What's even crazier is that multiple comments (including my own) have stated that we'd be fine with your proposed rule change, but your reasoning for it devalues the very constructs of the game.

[LICC]

1 minute ago, TR1PTIK said:

So if you make the same bad swing and it somehow finds the bottom of the hole, then what? You're trying to make an argument that equally bad swings should therefore be equally penalized, but that just isn't how it works. The rules clearly define both OB and Penalty Areas including how they should be marked, options for relief, and how penalties should be assessed. They are two completely different things for all intents and purposes of the game.

I'm not saying the rule can't be changed, but you've completely failed to recognize how the game of golf and its rules (or any other sport and its rules) are constructed.

You're contentions are completely irrational and based purely on an emotional response as revealed by your numerous objections to any differing points of view. What's even crazier is that multiple comments (including my own) have stated that we'd be fine with your proposed rule change, but your reasoning for it devalues the very constructs of the game.

Let's stay in reality. Show me one example ever of a screaming slice or hook going into the hole. But if you want to talk about lucky bounces, well that is just the randomness of nature. The randomness of nature is no reason to have the man-made design of the rules to contain an inherent unfair inconsistency.

[TR1PTIK]

Just now, LICC said:

Let's stay in reality. Show me one example ever of a screaming slice or hook going into the hole. But if you want to talk about lucky bounces, well that is just the randomness of nature. The randomness of nature is no reason to have the man-made design of the rules to contain an inherent unfair inconsistency.

And guess what? It's the randomness of nature when a slice rears its head on a hole with water, or a different hole with OB. So yeah, let's stay in reality shall we?

[LICC]

1 minute ago, TR1PTIK said:

And guess what? It's the randomness of nature when a slice rears its head on a hole with water, or a different hole with OB. So yeah, let's stay in reality shall we?

Designing a hole with a lateral OB or lateral pond, knowing that bad slices will land in those areas, isn't random ...

[GolfSpy_BNG]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

Why are you so angry at the people here who disagree with you?

I’m not angry at the people who disagree with me.  I’m pissed at you because you sit here and deem everybody’s opinion illogical that you don’t agree with and expect them to find fault or prove your opinion wrong. It doesn’t work that way. People like you do that to intentionally upset people. You should be happy cuz I’m sure this is what you wanted from the start. To be honest I’m not sure why you play golf with how much you seem to dislike about it and it’s rules.  
 

Heaven please bring me Viking back!

[TR1PTIK]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

Designing a hole with a lateral OB or lateral pond, knowing that bad slices will land in those areas, isn't random ...

Of course it isn't you dolt!!! Golf courses are strategically designed with such obstacles on purpose!!! But fine, let's go back to the example from before. Instead of miraculously finding the bottom of the cup, your slice lands in the next fairway. Are you taking a drop from the point where the ball crossed into the adjacent fairway? I didn't think so. You are literally the dumbest dumb person I have ever talked to. I am out. Best of luck to everyone else here trying to hold a conversation with this insufferable toad!

[Stuka44]

15 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

And guess what? It's the randomness of nature when a slice rears its head on a hole with water, or a different hole with OB. So yeah, let's stay in reality shall we?

Now see this is funny too! Wish I would have thought of it.  The beauty of this is that everyone who thinks the rule is great, have fun on Saturday hitting your provisional, or going back to the tee! I will be summarily dismissing the stroke and distance rule, and likely several others along the way, and we will all have fun in our own way.

 

[cnosil]

32 minutes ago, LICC said:

Logic requires that a conclusion must be the result of its premises. The soundness of an argument requires that its premises be true and accurate. You are constantly providing conclusions without sound premises (or any premises), or conclusions that are not supported by sound premises.

If OB and PA had the same double penalty, I would not call it illogical, but I would call it overly harsh and a bad rule for that reason.

To me the decision was logical based on sound reasoning.  Your opinion is that it isn't logical.  The belief that something is overly harsh is also an opinion.  Everyday people make decisions by applying logic to a situation and there isn't a requirement for 100% agreement.   I can name things in today's world that I believe are overly harsh.    My opinion is that you could have approached this thread a whole different way and gotten the type of feedback you were looking for.  My opinion is that you just like to create controversy and I say that because I have asked if you agree with potential changes and you ignore that aspect of the post  and focus on things that perpetuate the controversy.  

So lets look at this a different way.   You want the rules to look like this:

OB is an area of the golf course that is marked in a way to indicated to the player that they cannot play their ball from that area.   If you hit a ball OB then the player has several options.   1.  Stroke and Distance.   2.  Drop two club lengths from the point where the ball crossed OB and take a 1 stroke penalty.  

Red Staked Penalty Area:   The person has the following options from a penalty area.  1.  Play the ball as it lies.  2.  Stroke and Distance.  3.  take it back on a line of relief  by going back as far as you want one the line between the hole and where you crossed.   4.  lateral relief and drop two club lengths from where the ball crossed the hazard line and take a 1 stroke penalty.   

Fundamentally we have 2 different penalty areas but there are different options and the penalties are the same.  While I don't think there is any more "logic" applied to the change,  it doesn't make the game "better",  and it doesn't change the "fairness" of the game but I believe it captures how you would want the rules to read.   While I don't think a change is necessary,  I would be fine with this type of change.     

Would that meet your criteria for how the rules should be written?

 

[GolfSpy_BNG]

11 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Now see this is funny too! Wish I would have thought of it.  The beauty of this is that everyone who thinks the rule is great, have fun on Saturday hitting your provisional, or going back to the tee! I will be summarily dismissing the stroke and distance rule, and likely several others along the way, and we will all have fun in our own way.

 

And there is absolutely zero wrong with this!  As many of us have stated numerous times in this thread and others. 
 

I hope you have the round of your life @stuka44 and perhaps even a HIO!  Unless you already have one then forget you!

[cnosil]

13 minutes ago, stuka44 said:

Now see this is funny too! Wish I would have thought of it.  The beauty of this is that everyone who thinks the rule is great, have fun on Saturday hitting your provisional, or going back to the tee! I will be summarily dismissing the stroke and distance rule, and likely several others along the way, and we will all have fun in our own way.

 

Don't need to go back to the tee.  My group plays the local rule that was added regarding OB;  we drop and take a two stroke penalty.   My golf league does the same thing.