Changing your putt with a "unplayable".

[nsxguy]

While I don't see the practical application of the OP's original question--there are very very few circumstances where the ball will come to rest above the hole on a slope that is so severe such that a putt tapped just a couple inches will not stop (likely leaving a putt of 12" or less, which should theoretically have a higher make % than the severely-uphill 2fter you will leave after invoking the unplayable)--there is another similar situation where this would be EXTREMELY useful. Namely, a putt that comes to rest on a slope that is directly sidehill from the cup and roughly 4 or so feet from the cup. In this situation you may have a putt that over that 4 feet could break around 2-3 feet, making it both nearly unmakeable and nearly impossible to stop near the hole, as the ball will pick up speed coming back down the slope. By invoking the unplayable rule, you could theoretically take two club lengths at 45* to the cup and leave yourself a 4-footer that is straight back up the hill when eventually placed, which is probably mathematically the right play every time.

 

While I HAVE seen this situation (above the hole and the ball will NOT stop and in fact will run off the green) I also thought of the SIDEHILL putt just as you described it.

 

THAT putt, given the situation described, WOULD be one where you could take an unplayable and move it from the SIDE of the hole 45* to the same distance BELOW the hole.

[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.

 

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.

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

[DrRob1963]

 

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

[Sawgrass]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

Your mates "horrify" too easily.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

I have to say DrRob, that all the serious golfers I play with (mostly low single digits for reference, if that matters) appreciate taking advantage of the rules when the opportunity arises. It's just smart golf. Because there are plenty of times when they don't go in your favor (current thread on relief from the line of your shot as opposed to your swing or stance, hardly seems equitable). I can appreciate your disdain for it, and understand feeling it is against the spirit.

 

But the reactions you expect from your makes brings to mind the old saying, "cut off your nose to spite your face". The game is difficult enough, I would think everyone would always avail themselves of anything that would help.

[nsxguy]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

So then youse guys just use the Rules that "punish" you, yes ? I mean you hit if off cart paths, don't take relief from immovable obstruction, etc, right ? You're "manly" men.

 

If a Rule might actually help you and you USE it, you're what ? A "manipulator ? A cheater ? A unicorn ?

 

Tell the truth now - everything is upside down and the toilet really DOES flush the opposite way "Down Under", doesn't it ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

[DrRob1963]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

I have to say DrRob, that all the serious golfers I play with (mostly low single digits for reference, if that matters) appreciate taking advantage of the rules when the opportunity arises. It's just smart golf. Because there are plenty of times when they don't go in your favor (current thread on relief from the line of your shot as opposed to your swing or stance, hardly seems equitable). I can appreciate your disdain for it, and understand feeling it is against the spirit.

 

But the reactions you expect from your makes brings to mind the old saying, "cut off your nose to spite your face". The game is difficult enough, I would think everyone would always avail themselves of anything that would help.

Sure - we all use the rules at times in various situations to improve our position. There's no way I am climbing up a tree to hit a ball lodged up in the branches! I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the branches up a tree is unplayable, but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

[deadsolid...shank]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

I have to say DrRob, that all the serious golfers I play with (mostly low single digits for reference, if that matters) appreciate taking advantage of the rules when the opportunity arises. It's just smart golf. Because there are plenty of times when they don't go in your favor (current thread on relief from the line of your shot as opposed to your swing or stance, hardly seems equitable). I can appreciate your disdain for it, and understand feeling it is against the spirit.

 

But the reactions you expect from your makes brings to mind the old saying, "cut off your nose to spite your face". The game is difficult enough, I would think everyone would always avail themselves of anything that would help.

Sure - we all use the rules at times in various situations to improve our position. There's no way I am climbing up a tree to hit a ball lodged up in the branches! I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the branches up a tree is unplayable, but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

 

I do understand where you're coming from. I may not agree, but I do understand. ��

[DrRob1963]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

So then youse guys just use the Rules that "punish" you, yes ? I mean you hit if off cart paths, don't take relief from immovable obstruction, etc, right ? You're "manly" men.

 

If a Rule might actually help you and you USE it, you're what ? A "manipulator ? A cheater ? A unicorn ?

 

Tell the truth now - everything is upside down and the toilet really DOES flush the opposite way "Down Under", doesn't it ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

You get used to being upside down after a while. Mind you, peeing in the toilet does present a challenge at times, but we "manly men" can handle that! There's even a suburb in Sydney, Australia called "Manly", but it was not named after me.

When the rules allow, I do take relief from cart paths, immovables and kangaroos.

Again, I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the pouch of a kangaroo is "unplayable", but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

[Colin L]

You get used to being upside down after a while. Mind you, peeing in the toilet does present a challenge at times, but we "manly men" can handle that! There's even a suburb in Sydney, Australia called "Manly", but it was not named after me.

When the rules allow, I do take relief from cart paths, immovables and kangaroos.

Again, I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the pouch of a kangaroo is "unplayable", but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

 

A number of rules allowing relief from certain situations are permissive rules. That is, they allow the player to act to get out of the situation by lifting and moving his ball, sometimes for free and sometimes with a penalty stroke , rather than having to play the ball in accordance with primary principle of playing the ball as it lies. In the case of Rule 28, the situation from which the player can "escape" is left completely up to him. He can deem his ball unplayable anywhere except in a hazard for any reason not limited to the quality of his lie. e.g because it is lying on perfectly good ground but so close to a wall or a bush that he would not have been able to get the height to clear it. It is one of the most helpful rules in the book because it ensures that you can always move your game on pretty well no matter what sort of fine mess you've got yourself into. Making use of a permissive rule cannot be wrong, against the spirit of the game, unacceptable, dishonourable or whatever but deciding not to use a permissive rule for your own reasons isn't either. That's your choice.

 

I don't see the point of adding a layer of other rules on top of the actual Rules based on not being laughed at by one's mates, but you've certainly added another fascinating insight into how different golfers are around the world. Perhaps I don't need such extra rules because I already give my mates plenty to laugh about in some of my efforts to hit a ball and steer it roughly in the right direction :) It has never even occurred to me to deem a ball unplayable on a green although I expect I would have had my ball ever been lying on a badly damaged spot. In practical terms, I certainly wouldn't avoid a tricky downhiller by using Rule 28 to shift my ball below the hole. Why take a penalty stroke when there is the possibility of holing it? The delicacy of touch needed to avoid steaming away past the hole should be part of your set of skills. (I just wish it were!)

 

Thanks for the glimpse into your golfing principles not to mention into a golfing world where a ball could end up in a kangaroo's pouch.

[DrRob1963]

The Unplayable.

I can just see the scene - someone doing this unplayable thing on the steeply sloped 18th green, to avoid that knee-trembling 3' down-hiller to win the tournament.

Final group, final player - everyone has gathered at the 18th.

I can hear his playing partners protesting, while the crowd gathering on the clubhouse balcony laugh and jeer him. "An unplayable on the green!" they cry out.

The rules officials, shaking their heads, rolling their eyes as they check & recheck the rule book, finally allow the player to proceed.

The first drop rolls down off into a bunker - he retrieves it. The second drop lands, almost stops, starts to roll, only to settle 8' away - the officials tell the player he must play from there!

Its going wrong - a 3' putt to win is now an 8-footer, but its straight uphill, and 2 putts will do the job. His knees are trembling now

More cat-calls from the balcony, as the player surveys this 8' uphill putt to WIN! The air is electric as silence falls - he steadies over the putt.

A crisp, firm stroke sends the ball up towards the hole as a drunken spectator cries out "IN THE HOLE!" Every eye strains as the ball hits the hole, lips out 180* and starts rolling back. It rolls and it rolls..... back down the slope, back past the player and down into the bunker! Up against the back edge.. Into a footprint. His own footprint from the first drop! He looks down at it in dismay....

"Can I take an unplayable? asks the player.

[Stuart_G]

On the earth we're dealing with "spherical geometry"

 

Not really - spherical is only for a few very specialized fields or cases (and yes, global circumnavigation is one of them).

 

Those who never get past high school geometry stick with planer geometry because that's all they've been taught. Those that go on to the next step go right into 3d geometry. And the linear concept of "between" is just as valid in 3d space as it is in 2d planer geometry so don't think of it as being limited or only making sense to just planer geometry.

 

 

If this was an actual issue and not just golf forum wankery,

 

Well said.

[Stuart_G]

I think path is the most correct terminology as the possible drop points

 

I know that's what you think, and that's the core mistake you're making, and the thing you have no actual substance to validate that way of thinking.

 

 

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.

 

I'm not the one trying to influence the answers with peripheral nonsense and gimmickry. I just used 3 points and the word "between" - just like the rules do.

 

The rule does not mention line, path, circular, line of sight, linear etc.

 

It doesn't have to, the use of the word "between" is perfectly sufficient. I could argue line of sight is implied, since they expect you to use your vision to verify the proper positioning. But even that isn't necessary, since the commonly accepted concept of between stands completely on it's own. But I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

 

 

Of course, you certainly don't have to accept my interpretation of the rule. Feel free to write the USGA and ask them if your concept is valid or not.

 

http://www.usga.org/...s-question.html

 

I doubt they'll have as much patience with you as I have - but they probably will be more polite about it.

[Singapore Joe]

RE: Intuition/emotion vs. letter of the rules

 

IMHO, rules of golf are like any other standard we use for greater or lesser degree in a lot of things we do. I happen to be really deep in some fairly complicated technical standards, and from those there are a lot of parallels to the rules of golf.

 

Standards (rules) tell you how to perform certain task in general, in this case whacking a tiny ball into a hole far away. Standards (rules) also define the overall procedure, in this case for keeping score, and prescribe scoring scenarios for a number of special cases which can not be validated using the basic rules. Additionally, there are generic rules which govern sets of circumstances in a general manner so that those rules can be applied to all cases where no prescriptive scenario exists.

 

The spirit of golf is then defined as a commitment to playing the game in accordance with those rules. This is self policed whereas in many standards there are various audit and accreditation procedures using which an independent body verifies that a facility has committed into performing certain tasks in full conformance with the standards and possibly make decisions in case of disputes.

 

But in the end it boils down to non-emotional conformance with the rules. The whole discussion of using rules "to your advantage" or "to your disadvantage" is where we enter the intuitive domain and start loading the rules with emotion. The rules don't really care how you feel about them, they are there to be followed. There are rules many don't like (e.g. having to hit from a divot or from a foot print in an unraked bunker) and like to load with emotional descriptors such as "unfair". There are also rules that many people like, such as getting relief in certain scenarios which we often follow almost on an autopilot.

 

In this case, it is well within the rules that one can declare any lie unplayable and take a shot and distance penalty. Maybe that was not intended for use at the greens but as long as there are no clause forbidding it, one is still playing golf in accordance with the rules (and therefore the spirit of the game) if doing it. I find that a dodgy call that really should not happen but the rules allow it so in fact, strictly speaking, if I dispute it on an emotional basis using my intuitive judgement on how I feel the rules should be, I am the one deviating from the spirit of the game.

 

Likewise the putting of a moving ball. I wrote above that I believe there should have been a more harsh punishment for it but whether I like it or now, the ruling was in full conformace with the rules so be it. Whether random people in a pub approve it or not has nothing to do with it. Whether informed people on a golf forum approve it or not has nothing to do with it, either, unless they can mobilise and trigger a change in the rules.

 

That's all, folks!

[deadsolid...shank]

The Unplayable.

I can just see the scene - someone doing this unplayable thing on the steeply sloped 18th green, to avoid that knee-trembling 3' down-hiller to win the tournament.

Final group, final player - everyone has gathered at the 18th.

I can hear his playing partners protesting, while the crowd gathering on the clubhouse balcony laugh and jeer him. "An unplayable on the green!" they cry out.

The rules officials, shaking their heads, rolling their eyes as they check & recheck the rule book, finally allow the player to proceed.

The first drop rolls down off into a bunker - he retrieves it. The second drop lands, almost stops, starts to roll, only to settle 8' away - the officials tell the player he must play from there!

Its going wrong - a 3' putt to win is now an 8-footer, but its straight uphill, and 2 putts will do the job. His knees are trembling now

More cat-calls from the balcony, as the player surveys this 8' uphill putt to WIN! The air is electric as silence falls - he steadies over the putt.

A crisp, firm stroke sends the ball up towards the hole as a drunken spectator cries out "IN THE HOLE!" Every eye strains as the ball hits the hole, lips out 180* and starts rolling back. It rolls and it rolls..... back down the slope, back past the player and down into the bunker! Up against the back edge.. Into a footprint. His own footprint from the first drop! He looks down at it in dismay....

"Can I take an unplayable? asks the player.

 

Sure. And now back to where he hit the putt from. He still has a chance to win(I think that's correct, I'm all confused now with thoughts of kangaroo pouches)!

[DrRob1963]

RE: Intuition/emotion vs. letter of the rules

 

IMHO, rules of golf are like any other standard we use for greater or lesser degree in a lot of things we do. I happen to be really deep in some fairly complicated technical standards, and from those there are a lot of parallels to the rules of golf.

 

Standards (rules) tell you how to perform certain task in general, in this case whacking a tiny ball into a hole far away. Standards (rules) also define the overall procedure, in this case for keeping score, and prescribe scoring scenarios for a number of special cases which can not be validated using the basic rules. Additionally, there are generic rules which govern sets of circumstances in a general manner so that those rules can be applied to all cases where no prescriptive scenario exists.

 

The spirit of golf is then defined as a commitment to playing the game in accordance with those rules. This is self policed whereas in many standards there are various audit and accreditation procedures using which an independent body verifies that a facility has committed into performing certain tasks in full conformance with the standards and possibly make decisions in case of disputes.

 

But in the end it boils down to non-emotional conformance with the rules. The whole discussion of using rules "to your advantage" or "to your disadvantage" is where we enter the intuitive domain and start loading the rules with emotion. The rules don't really care how you feel about them, they are there to be followed. There are rules many don't like (e.g. having to hit from a divot or from a foot print in an unraked bunker) and like to load with emotional descriptors such as "unfair". There are also rules that many people like, such as getting relief in certain scenarios which we often follow almost on an autopilot.

 

In this case, it is well within the rules that one can declare any lie unplayable and take a shot and distance penalty. Maybe that was not intended for use at the greens but as long as there are no clause forbidding it, one is still playing golf in accordance with the rules (and therefore the spirit of the game) if doing it. I find that a dodgy call that really should not happen but the rules allow it so in fact, strictly speaking, if I dispute it on an emotional basis using my intuitive judgement on how I feel the rules should be, I am the one deviating from the spirit of the game.

 

Likewise the putting of a moving ball. I wrote above that I believe there should have been a more harsh punishment for it but whether I like it or now, the ruling was in full conformace with the rules so be it. Whether random people in a pub approve it or not has nothing to do with it. Whether informed people on a golf forum approve it or not has nothing to do with it, either, unless they can mobilise and trigger a change in the rules.

 

That's all, folks!

You're right - the rules don't care. And the officials will apply them as written, but those rules are not set in stone.

The rule makers at the USGA and R&A are made up of people who do care. They want those rules to function in a certain way that preserves what they believe to be the essence of the sport of golf. If the rules don't function the way they want, they will change the rules. Recently, they have shown a willingness to quickly change those rules that did not work properly or effectively.

For instance, balls were moving on the greens at the 2016 US Open at Oakmont. Officials applied the rules as they stood, but the rule was changed soon after.

Another example, the 2017 ANA Inspiration, where a TV viewer called in a ball marking infraction on Lexi Thompson the next day. The officials applied the rules as they stood, but those rules were changed shortly afterwards.

I don't think the USGA does a good job running the US Open, but they have done much better job with preserving the spirit of the game of golf. So, if players start hitting moving balls on a regular basis, the rule will change - probably to disqualification. Likewise, if players start taking "unplayables" on the green, the rules will likely change to prevent that.

Why? Because the USGA and R&A rule makers do care, and will move to preserve what they believe to be the essence of the sport of golf.

[Stuart_G]

Because the USGA and R&A rule makers do care, and will move to preserve what they believe to be the essence of the sport of golf.

 

True. But the big question is whether their beliefs coincide with yours in this particular case. I haven't seen any evidence of that - but only time will tell.

 

 

EDIT:

 

here is one video on the usga's web site on using an unplayable to one's advantage (by a usga rules official).

http://www.usga.org/...ayable-lie.html

 

 

Also interesting trivia. There was a time when your opponent had the opportunity to contest whether a ball really was unplayable or not.

 

http://www.usga.org/...hink-again.html

[DaveLeeNC]

For those of you who view this use of an unplayable lie 'ungolflike', how about this scenario.

 

60 yards from the green, perfect lie in the fairway, with water tight to the green. You are in match play and feel that you need to get up/down in 4 to win the hole. Your intermediate wedge play is HORRIBLE, but your full swing wedge play is fine. So you take an unplayable and back off another 40 yards to get a full gap wedge that you are confident you can get up/down in 3 strokes.

 

Is this any different to those of you who object to this usage of unplayable lies? Would it matter if the term unplayable (in the RoG) were to be dropped and Rule 28 were changed to simply say that, outside of a hazard, at a penalty of one stroke the golfer can at any time move his/her ball 2 CL's no nearer the hole or back on a straight line from ball to hole any distance (no nearer).

 

Just curious as to where the objection lies.

 

dave

[Sawgrass]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

So then youse guys just use the Rules that "punish" you, yes ? I mean you hit if off cart paths, don't take relief from immovable obstruction, etc, right ? You're "manly" men.

 

If a Rule might actually help you and you USE it, you're what ? A "manipulator ? A cheater ? A unicorn ?

 

Tell the truth now - everything is upside down and the toilet really DOES flush the opposite way "Down Under", doesn't it ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

You get used to being upside down after a while. Mind you, peeing in the toilet does present a challenge at times, but we "manly men" can handle that! There's even a suburb in Sydney, Australia called "Manly", but it was not named after me.

When the rules allow, I do take relief from cart paths, immovables and kangaroos.

Again, I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the pouch of a kangaroo is "unplayable", but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

Since I enjoy talking to you, I need to know: Is it only taking an unplayable lie on the green which will banish me from the pub after the round, or must I also betray my right to take a Stroke and Distance penalty while on the dance floor?

[Stuart_G]

It's interesting to note, that in the PDF of the 2019 rules, the purpose of the "Unplayable Ball" rule is listed as:

 

Purpose: Rule 19 covers the player’s several relief options for an unplayable ball. This allows the player to choose which option to use – normally with one penalty stroke – to get out of a difficult situation anywhere on the course (except in a penalty area).

 

So those suggesting the "spirit" is only be intended for "impossible" situations, might be pushing things a bit and taking the work "unplayable" a bit too literally.

 

I guess they could have called it the "Getting out of a Difficult Situation" rule - but that seems a bit wordy to me.

[Singapore Joe]

RE: Intuition/emotion vs. letter of the rules

 

IMHO, rules of golf are like any other standard we use for greater or lesser degree in a lot of things we do. I happen to be really deep in some fairly complicated technical standards, and from those there are a lot of parallels to the rules of golf.

 

Standards (rules) tell you how to perform certain task in general, in this case whacking a tiny ball into a hole far away. Standards (rules) also define the overall procedure, in this case for keeping score, and prescribe scoring scenarios for a number of special cases which can not be validated using the basic rules. Additionally, there are generic rules which govern sets of circumstances in a general manner so that those rules can be applied to all cases where no prescriptive scenario exists.

 

The spirit of golf is then defined as a commitment to playing the game in accordance with those rules. This is self policed whereas in many standards there are various audit and accreditation procedures using which an independent body verifies that a facility has committed into performing certain tasks in full conformance with the standards and possibly make decisions in case of disputes.

 

But in the end it boils down to non-emotional conformance with the rules. The whole discussion of using rules "to your advantage" or "to your disadvantage" is where we enter the intuitive domain and start loading the rules with emotion. The rules don't really care how you feel about them, they are there to be followed. There are rules many don't like (e.g. having to hit from a divot or from a foot print in an unraked bunker) and like to load with emotional descriptors such as "unfair". There are also rules that many people like, such as getting relief in certain scenarios which we often follow almost on an autopilot.

 

In this case, it is well within the rules that one can declare any lie unplayable and take a shot and distance penalty. Maybe that was not intended for use at the greens but as long as there are no clause forbidding it, one is still playing golf in accordance with the rules (and therefore the spirit of the game) if doing it. I find that a dodgy call that really should not happen but the rules allow it so in fact, strictly speaking, if I dispute it on an emotional basis using my intuitive judgement on how I feel the rules should be, I am the one deviating from the spirit of the game.

 

Likewise the putting of a moving ball. I wrote above that I believe there should have been a more harsh punishment for it but whether I like it or now, the ruling was in full conformace with the rules so be it. Whether random people in a pub approve it or not has nothing to do with it. Whether informed people on a golf forum approve it or not has nothing to do with it, either, unless they can mobilise and trigger a change in the rules.

 

That's all, folks!

You're right - the rules don't care. And the officials will apply them as written, but those rules are not set in stone.

The rule makers at the USGA and R&A are made up of people who do care. They want those rules to function in a certain way that preserves what they believe to be the essence of the sport of golf. If the rules don't function the way they want, they will change the rules. Recently, they have shown a willingness to quickly change those rules that did not work properly or effectively.

For instance, balls were moving on the greens at the 2016 US Open at Oakmont. Officials applied the rules as they stood, but the rule was changed soon after.

Another example, the 2017 ANA Inspiration, where a TV viewer called in a ball marking infraction on Lexi Thompson the next day. The officials applied the rules as they stood, but those rules were changed shortly afterwards.

I don't think the USGA does a good job running the US Open, but they have done much better job with preserving the spirit of the game of golf. So, if players start hitting moving balls on a regular basis, the rule will change - probably to disqualification. Likewise, if players start taking "unplayables" on the green, the rules will likely change to prevent that.

Why? Because the USGA and R&A rule makers do care, and will move to preserve what they believe to be the essence of the sport of golf.

That makes sense. And I agree with it. However, that does not change the premise that we should not apply our intuitive/emotional interpretation of events as rules if the actual rules describe a scenario to be applied.

 

Let's see what USGA is going to do. Certainly this would be more useful way to spend time than changing the drop rule from shoulder height to knee height. Let's also see whether we actually see unplayables as discussed in this thread in play. As Stuart G. points out, the wording is going to soften so it seems they are going the other way. We also may not want rules that require arbitration, i.e. where the committee may DQ a player for this or that. That opens the rules to too much variance in the rigour in which they are applied and if a low ranking player is DQ's and a high ranking in similar circumstances is not, that's going to be a big hulabaloo - maybe even litigation.

 

Friday morning 7am. Time to head to the golf course. Yesterday's game ate my soul so hopefully today I will gain it back.

[Krt22]

The Unplayable.

I can just see the scene - someone doing this unplayable thing on the steeply sloped 18th green, to avoid that knee-trembling 3' down-hiller to win the tournament.

Final group, final player - everyone has gathered at the 18th.

I can hear his playing partners protesting, while the crowd gathering on the clubhouse balcony laugh and jeer him. "An unplayable on the green!" they cry out.

The rules officials, shaking their heads, rolling their eyes as they check & recheck the rule book, finally allow the player to proceed.

The first drop rolls down off into a bunker - he retrieves it. The second drop lands, almost stops, starts to roll, only to settle 8' away - the officials tell the player he must play from there!

Its going wrong - a 3' putt to win is now an 8-footer, but its straight uphill, and 2 putts will do the job. His knees are trembling now

More cat-calls from the balcony, as the player surveys this 8' uphill putt to WIN! The air is electric as silence falls - he steadies over the putt.

A crisp, firm stroke sends the ball up towards the hole as a drunken spectator cries out "IN THE HOLE!" Every eye strains as the ball hits the hole, lips out 180* and starts rolling back. It rolls and it rolls..... back down the slope, back past the player and down into the bunker! Up against the back edge.. Into a footprint. His own footprint from the first drop! He looks down at it in dismay....

"Can I take an unplayable? asks the player.

 

If the 3' downhiller was for the win, taking the penalty and hitting back up the hill would be for the tie, no?

[DrRob1963]

The Unplayable.

I can just see the scene - someone doing this unplayable thing on the steeply sloped 18th green, to avoid that knee-trembling 3' down-hiller to win the tournament.

Final group, final player - everyone has gathered at the 18th.

I can hear his playing partners protesting, while the crowd gathering on the clubhouse balcony laugh and jeer him. "An unplayable on the green!" they cry out.

The rules officials, shaking their heads, rolling their eyes as they check & recheck the rule book, finally allow the player to proceed.

The first drop rolls down off into a bunker - he retrieves it. The second drop lands, almost stops, starts to roll, only to settle 8' away - the officials tell the player he must play from there!

Its going wrong - a 3' putt to win is now an 8-footer, but its straight uphill, and 2 putts will do the job. His knees are trembling now

More cat-calls from the balcony, as the player surveys this 8' uphill putt to WIN! The air is electric as silence falls - he steadies over the putt.

A crisp, firm stroke sends the ball up towards the hole as a drunken spectator cries out "IN THE HOLE!" Every eye strains as the ball hits the hole, lips out 180* and starts rolling back. It rolls and it rolls..... back down the slope, back past the player and down into the bunker! Up against the back edge.. Into a footprint. His own footprint from the first drop! He looks down at it in dismay....

"Can I take an unplayable? asks the player.

 

If the 3' downhiller was for the win, taking the penalty and hitting back up the hill would be for the tie, no?

The original post stated the player had a three shot advantage.

[Colin L]

This thread is somewhat unsettling. No sooner have you got stuck into a conversation about unplayable balls than you can be teleported into a parallel universe where others are pursuing the notion that in order to place your ball on the opposite side of the hole you could choose to circumnavigate the planet.

 

Could this be the first golf rules internet forum to include a reference to π ?

 

I think I will lie down for a while in a darkened room.

[DrRob1963]

It's interesting to note, that in the PDF of the 2019 rules, the purpose of the "Unplayable Ball" rule is listed as:

 

Purpose: Rule 19 covers the player’s several relief options for an unplayable ball. This allows the player to choose which option to use – normally with one penalty stroke – to get out of a difficult situation anywhere on the course (except in a penalty area).

 

So those suggesting the "spirit" is only be intended for "impossible" situations, might be pushing things a bit and taking the work "unplayable" a bit too literally.

 

I guess they could have called it the "Getting out of a Difficult Situation" rule - but that seems a bit wordy to me.

We are basically speculating about a hypothetical situation. But if it did happen in a tournament, it then would become a real event. Real events seem to spur the governing bodies of golf into action, if they disagree with how things went.

I have no doubt it would be tremendously controversial - one of the big talking points of the tournament. All the golf and sports shows would be discussing it. Golfers around the world would be talking about it. Even Brandel Chamblee would have an opinion. Dan Jenkins would need an ambulance!

The rules officials would look at it on the day. The rules-making committees at the R&A and USGA would discuss it later. A decision would be made.

We don't know what decisions would be made - we are guessing....

The officials on the day may allow it, or they may rule that a 3' putt cannot be "unplayable". Or that a 3' putt does not qualify as "a difficult situation".

The rule makers will look at it. They may allow it, or they may amend the rule to prevent it in future.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe that they would disallow/outlaw an "unplayable" being taken on a short downhill putt.

[DrRob1963]

This thread is somewhat unsettling. No sooner have you got stuck into a conversation about unplayable balls than you can be teleported into a parallel universe where others are pursuing the notion that in order to place your ball on the opposite side of the hole you could choose to circumnavigate the planet.

 

Could this be the first golf rules internet forum to include a reference to π ?

 

I think I will lie down for a while in a darkened room.

I try to stay away from any math using Greek symbols - works well enough for me.

Bryson DeChambeau can have them!

[Colin L]

....... Or that a 3' putt does not qualify as "a difficult situation".

 

All 3' putts are difficult situations.

[DrRob1963]

You cannot confuse the common meaning of specific Rules words with their explicit Rules meanings without getting hopelessly lost. (The fundamental meaning of "stroke" is just one example.) And you can't say that explicitly following the Rules is against the Spirit of the Game when the Rules say that following the Rules is an essential part of the Spirit of the game.

 

While eloquently stated, your comments circle around themselves to say that because you don't like it, it's wrong.

 

And none of this would be controversial if people didn't insist that it is controversial. I welcome all my opponents to obey/accurately use the Rules in any way they please.

You are correct in that I believe it is wrong, and I don't like it.

You may be able to manipulate and twist the rulebook definition to your own purposes, but your reputation will suffer because most people apply the common meaning of that word to what you do. Balls on the green are [common meaning] "playable".

The people I call "mates" and play with, respect the spirit & traditions of the game of golf and play golf that way. They count all their shots, they call penalties on themselves, they don't stretch or manipulate the rules and they don't fudge their handicaps. They would be horrified by a golfer declaring a ball "unplayable" on a green, just as they were shocked by Phil whacking his moving ball. Did Phil take a two shot penalty by striking a moving ball to stop it rolling into a worse position? A clever use of the rules, or a violation of what golf stands for? I admit - these are violations of what golf means to me.

You may be able to play by technicalities & manipulations, but you [and your reputation] will be judged by your actions. Phil has just discovered this. Trashed!

 

So then youse guys just use the Rules that "punish" you, yes ? I mean you hit if off cart paths, don't take relief from immovable obstruction, etc, right ? You're "manly" men.

 

If a Rule might actually help you and you USE it, you're what ? A "manipulator ? A cheater ? A unicorn ?

 

Tell the truth now - everything is upside down and the toilet really DOES flush the opposite way "Down Under", doesn't it ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

You get used to being upside down after a while. Mind you, peeing in the toilet does present a challenge at times, but we "manly men" can handle that! There's even a suburb in Sydney, Australia called "Manly", but it was not named after me.

When the rules allow, I do take relief from cart paths, immovables and kangaroos.

Again, I think its a matter of where you draw the line on whats acceptable and what isn't. For me, a ball in the pouch of a kangaroo is "unplayable", but a ball on the green is not (even if it is a scary putt).

Since I enjoy talking to you, I need to know: Is it only taking an unplayable lie on the green which will banish me from the pub after the round, or must I also betray my right to take a Stroke and Distance penalty while on the dance floor?

Just stay away from that angry looking kangaroo - the one with the boxing gloves!

[DrRob1963]

....... Or that a 3' putt does not qualify as "a difficult situation".

 

All 3' putts are difficult situations.

... but not "unplayable"!

[Sawgrass]

....... Or that a 3' putt does not qualify as "a difficult situation".

 

All 3' putts are difficult situations.

... but not "unplayable"!

. . . unless the player says so!

 

Doc, what do you say to asking someone in Australia who is affiliated with the R&A about how they would rule on a player daring to explicitly follow a rule he'd like to follow?

 

"We'll have none of THAT!" or "Well, I guess so."