Changing your putt with a "unplayable".

[deadsolid...shank]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

True enough - we don't know what Phil would have scored, but its likely to be less than 10, and the heartache & controversy generated by the "slap-shot" certainly was not worth it. It would be 10 times worse if he had taken an "unplayable" on a green, even though those greens were very close to being unplayable. Then again, the USGA seems to specialize in ridiculous golf course set-ups.

 

I agree with most of that.

 

Although you shouldn’t get ribbed for taking advantage of a very common rule situation.

[Singapore Joe]

For any agree that a player could drop on the other side of the hole, for the proposed instance in the original post, then I would be interested to hear why then you can't do the same given rule 28b. I would think the USGA would say no to dropping on the other side of the hole.

 

Because for 28b it specifically uses the term "behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped". It doesn't freely allow you to proceed in both directions of that line.

 

We've been through it before but if the unplayable lie is directly east of the cup then continuing east, with no limit, leads you where? Try it on a globe. Don't let your notion of what you think the limit should be get in your way. Continue with no limit . You do not need the path to go the other direction to get to the other side of the cup. On a globe draw a path from the other side of the cup towards the unplayable lie. Can you draw a path without limit through the unplayable lie that leads to the cup? Yes, you can. The unplayable lie remains directly between the other side of the hole and cup.

Before you bust your globe, look at the exact language of the Rule and note that circling the earth will not reflect the Rule's option. You must keep the original point directly between the hole and the point upon which it's dropped:

 

 

 

b.

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or

 

Put 3 dots in a 'straight' path on the globe then draw from the center dot towards the right hand dot and continue without limit until your reach the left dot. The right hand dot (unplayable lie) is directly between the hole (center dot) and the drop spot (left dot).

A pity hyperbolic geometry can't be applied in this instance. For other than for the mathematical properties, it would be very suitable.

[Fade]

Three dots can only be connected with a straight line if they are in the same plane. Not if they are on a sphere.

 

And anyway, walking around the globe to check would cause an unreasonable delay.

 

I said path not line and the word straight is in quotes because we both know the path can go up hills or down valleys. As I said the right hand dot (unplayable lie) is directly between the hole (center dot) and the drop spot (left dot).

 

It's not necessary to walk around the globe to get to the drop point.

 

Still not reading anything that prohibits it IF you interpret the rule as written rather than trying to force it into what the rule was intended to be.

 

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

[Shilgy]

Hey Hats, good luck with the drop. Make sure you really go straight back though. At that distance a degree or two off will have you starting in Philly and placing on the green in Miami.

[Singapore Joe]

Three dots can only be connected with a straight line if they are in the same plane. Not if they are on a sphere.

 

And anyway, walking around the globe to check would cause an unreasonable delay.

 

I said path not line and the word straight is in quotes because we both know the path can go up hills or down valleys. As I said the right hand dot (unplayable lie) is directly between the hole (center dot) and the drop spot (left dot).

 

It's not necessary to walk around the globe to get to the drop point.

 

Still not reading anything that prohibits it IF you interpret the rule as written rather than trying to force it into what the rule was intended to be.

 

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

[DrRob1963]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

True enough - we don't know what Phil would have scored, but its likely to be less than 10, and the heartache & controversy generated by the "slap-shot" certainly was not worth it. It would be 10 times worse if he had taken an "unplayable" on a green, even though those greens were very close to being unplayable. Then again, the USGA seems to specialize in ridiculous golf course set-ups.

 

I agree with most of that.

 

Although you shouldn’t get ribbed for taking advantage of a very common rule situation.

We rib each other every chance we get!!!

[Stuart_G]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

[Singapore Joe]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms. In euclidean geometries and cartersian planes this is more or less as your link describes (three points are collinear when they do not define a plane but are on the same "line") but in more complex (non-euclidean) geometries a line can be pretty much anything.

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

[Stuart_G]

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms.

 

I'm a computational geometry 'guy' (as well as other descreitized computations - CFD, FEA, etc..) so, while I agree in advanced geometry it might get a bit fuzzy, in basic Euclidian 3d space, a line can be defined exactly through parametric equations. And that's always been enough of a definition for me.

 

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

 

True - but that doesn't mean it can't be fun :-)

[Colin L]

 

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

[TheCityGame]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

On the earth we're dealing with "spherical geometry" and "In spherical geometry, straight lines are great circles,"

 

 

"Between" only makes sense when we're dealing with planar geometry and you can't just say that "locally" we're dealing with planar geometry just because it looks that way. If we played golf on very tiny planets, this would be more evident.

 

If this was an actual issue and not just golf forum wankery, the easiest thing to do would be to add that the player can't leave the boundaries of the course.

 

Although there are probably situations where a player could conceivably leave the boundaries of the course, and wind up back on the course.

 

It would be easier just to put a limit on it of 1000 miles and deal with it later if we end up golfing on the aforementioned "very tiny planets".

[deadsolid...shank]

I have to say this thread may have taken one of the oddest turns I've seen in a long time. Geometry and Euclidean math, axioms, etc. wow!

 

I hated Geometry in high school, you guys are making my head hurt!

[golfandfishing]

I want to know how you have put yourself in a position to have a 3 shot lead but feel you can’t get down in 2 from 2 feet. Just nudge it. Christ.

[TheCityGame]

I want to know how you have put yourself in a position to have a 3 shot lead but feel you can't get down in 2 from 2 feet.

Immaterial.

[deadsolid...shank]

I want to know how you have put yourself in a position to have a 3 shot lead but feel you can’t get down in 2 from 2 feet. Just nudge it. Christ.

 

It’s a hypothetical question. A good one that makes you question and wonder on the rule. You don’t have to put it into a literal situation.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms. In euclidean geometries and cartersian planes this is more or less as your link describes (three points are collinear when they do not define a plane but are on the same "line") but in more complex (non-euclidean) geometries a line can be pretty much anything.

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

The far simpler solution to the Phil Paradox would have been for him to have gone back in time and re-hit his approach.

[jmck]

The far simpler solution to the Phil Paradox would have been for him to have gone back in time and re-hit his approach.

 

Not a prob. Just have to get Phil to run really really quickly around the earth in the direction opposite its rotation.

[HatsForBats]

Sure it has. The path follows the curvature of the terrain. Up hills and down valleys. The terrain continues to the other side of the cup.

 

No, A path might follow that route but not THE line that matters. The rules of golf are written to be followed in the perspective of the player and his line of sight. Not some distorted circular frame of reference.

 

Try my example of the golf ball, 3 dots and the glued rubber band cutting out the section between the cup and drop point I propose. Now tell me with a straight face that the unplayable point is not between the cup and drop point.

 

the unplayable point is not between the cup and drop point :mellow:

 

Better yet ask someone who has no idea why you are asking if the unplayable dot is between the other 2.

 

I did - and I'm in an office of engineers who actually understand geometry - and they think your crazy too.

 

The rule does not mention line, path, circular, line of sight, linear etc. I think path is the most correct terminology as the possible drop points, even the ones you think it states it is limited to, follow the curvature of the terrain. Correct? If your engineers cannot figure out a way to draw a path from the center dot, through the right hand dot and end at the left hand dot there is a problem with the way you are explaining it to them (the use of line, line of sight etc.). I think it is likely you are trying to influence the answers. Follow the rule exactly as written and not the way you wish it to be interpreted. One dot is the start, the other is the end and the third is............ between.

[Singapore Joe]

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms.

 

I'm a computational geometry 'guy' (as well as other descreitized computations - CFD, FEA, etc..) so, while I agree in advanced geometry it might get a bit fuzzy, in basic Euclidian 3d space, a line can be defined exactly through parametric equations. And that's always been enough of a definition for me.

 

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

 

True - but that doesn't mean it can't be fun :-)

My golf mostly occurs in non-euclidean spaces and produces effects which are hard to predict when projected on the playing surface. I would much prefer elliptic but am stuck in the hyperbolic.

[Singapore Joe]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms. In euclidean geometries and cartersian planes this is more or less as your link describes (three points are collinear when they do not define a plane but are on the same "line") but in more complex (non-euclidean) geometries a line can be pretty much anything.

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

The far simpler solution to the Phil Paradox would have been for him to have gone back in time and re-hit his approach.

Since we are far removed from the actual rules of golf alread, I say, time to bring the reign of Phil to an end!

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28749.The_Brief_and_Frightening_Reign_of_Phil

[Singapore Joe]

Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped on your way to that spot, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped;

 

Would that fix it for you?

 

If so, didn't the word "keeping" imply that?

Drop the ball on an orthodrome which includes the hole and the location of the ball, not closer to the hole and, when traversed along the orthodrome, not further than \pi x r from the hole where r is the radius of the planet on which the game is played.

 

The only thing that needs to be fixed is certain peoples understanding of "between" - which in geometry is based on using a line, not some arbitrary path they think can meander around the globe.

 

http://www.mathemati...ningeometry.htm

I'm a discrete maths guy but I did look into what exactly is "line" in geometry. Appears that for many geometries there can be no rigorous definition but a line is taken as a primitive concept i.e. something that is not defined but whose properties are given by the axioms. In euclidean geometries and cartersian planes this is more or less as your link describes (three points are collinear when they do not define a plane but are on the same "line") but in more complex (non-euclidean) geometries a line can be pretty much anything.

 

Guess we can accept that the intent of the rules of golf is as described in your link. Discussing non-euclidean geometries is pretty ridicuous in this context and I'll go and find something else to entertain myself.

The far simpler solution to the Phil Paradox would have been for him to have gone back in time and re-hit his approach.

I believe the official term for time travel is mulligan. The golfing scientists are still undecided of it's existence.

[DrRob1963]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

[DaveLeeNC]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

 

I have experienced 3 foot putts where the smallest of errors would leave me in a bunker, 40 yards down a hill well below the green, etc. Just like I have had positions in the woods where a perfectly struck draw will find the green and the smallest of errors would leave me God knows where.

 

dave

[DrRob1963]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

 

I have experienced 3 foot putts where the smallest of errors would leave me in a bunker, 40 yards down a hill well below the green, etc. Just like I have had positions in the woods where a perfectly struck draw will find the green and the smallest of errors would leave me God knows where.

 

dave

Sure - I have faced very dangerous putts too, but they were not truly unplayable - just very dangerous.

[deadsolid...shank]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

 

I have experienced 3 foot putts where the smallest of errors would leave me in a bunker, 40 yards down a hill well below the green, etc. Just like I have had positions in the woods where a perfectly struck draw will find the green and the smallest of errors would leave me God knows where.

 

dave

Sure - I have faced very dangerous putts too, but they were not truly unplayable - just very dangerous.

 

Semantics Dr. It may not be “unplayable”in the sense that physically it could be played. I agree with that.

 

But in golf vernacular, unplayable is wholey at the discretion of the player.

[Colin L]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

 

That's amazing. But you don't quite understand Rule 28. A ball is truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable for the sole reason that the player deems it be so - as explained in the post above.

[Augster]

An “unplayable ball” is not unplayable by committee. Any ball, outside a water hazard, can be deemed unplayable by the player. There is a Rule that says exactly that. Rule 28.

 

“The player may deem his ball unplayable at ANY PLACE on the course, except when the ball is in a water hazard. The PLAYER IS THE SOLE JUDGE as to whether his ball is unplayable.”

 

Just play by the rules. No need to make up new ones like “unplayable by committee” and other nonsense.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

The best solution to your problem would be to start drinking with members of the R&A (and USGA). I recommend it.

[DrRob1963]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

The best solution to your problem would be to start drinking with members of the R&A (and USGA). I recommend it.

But I don't have a blue jacket or dandruff....

[DrRob1963]

Dropping back on the fairway - I would get ribbed about it for the rest of the day. Mind you, there's not much nasty, thick rough near our sprinkler heads!

An "unplayable" on a green? Yes - I believe it is dishonest - a manipulation of the rules against the spirit of the game.

 

Playing according to the Rules can never be dishonest or against the spirit of the game which is defined amongst other things as abiding by the rules. Rule 28 clearly states that you may deem your ball unplayable anywhere on the course except in a water hazard. Choosing not to make use of a rule lke this seems perverse and pointless to me.

 

More fool you if you are not prepared to drop from rough to fairway under a rule. You are missing out on a perfectly proper lucky break. Decision 24-2b/8 makes that clear.

I understand 28 & D 24-2b/8

I would take that drop back onto the fairway. Its just that my mates would rib me about it for the rest of the round.

But if I tried to take an "unplayable" on the green, I would not have any mates!

 

To me, any rule applied on the golf course has to pass what we Australians would call "The Pub Test". That is, your mates down at the local public hotel would agree with it. There is no way possible they would agree that any lie on a green was "unplayable". How can a ball on a green be truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable especially when its just two or three feet from the hole? Hence I believe what the OP suggests is a rule manipulation against the spirit of the game.

 

That's amazing. But you don't quite understand Rule 28. A ball is truly, really, absolutely and definitively unplayable for the sole reason that the player deems it be so - as explained in the post above.

I don't agree and I do understand 28. There are two things about "unplayable" to be clear about: the Common English meaning, and the rulebook definition. With the common meaning of "unplayable", any ball sitting on any green is always playable. That treacherous, downhill slider 2-3 foot putt is [common meaning] playable, BUT the player has chosen to declare it [rulebook] "unplayable", and this may well be legal under the rules, allowing the option of a penalty drop to another position. That declaration is taking advantage of a rule technicality, but its also a rule manipulation in my view against the tradition & spirit of the game.

I believe that, if this was done in a professional tournament, a major even, it would be tremendously controversial, with the R&A and USGA likely to change rulebook definition of "unplayable" to exclude balls on the green.

 

Essentially what I am saying is that, even if you can legally do this, you will never live it down, and never hear the end of it - your golf reputation will be shredded permanently.

 

Look at what Phil did on 13 - the absolute furore, the anger and widespread condemnation, with an eventual grovelling apology! One act - reputation shredded.