Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

[Galted]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

It's a pity that you haven't said anything to show that you've engaged with my explanation of a basic principle of golf that the player cannot do anything to influence the movement of his ball once he has set it in motion without there being a consequence. Or with the internal consistency of the rules shown in the fact that Rule 4-4 is really no more than the application of Rule 19-2 to a particular situation. Or with the clarification that a penalty in this instance (as in others) is not intended to be a punishment but a way of ensuring that the player does not gain from the double hit should it happen to be advantageous. Or, finally, with the point that the Rules which you seem to think are sacrosanct and guarded jealously from change by the R&A/USGA and their acolytes are actually under constant review with revisions every 4 years. You can add in that the Decisions are reviewed every 2 years and that recently we even had a new local rule introduced to introduce more promptly a rule change which I expect virtually every referee welcomed for its improved simplicity - and which you yourself confusingly acknowledged.

But I'm not into trading insults and so it's goodnight from me.

Yes, and what did it finally take to get that local rule change? Certainly, the powers that be fought tooth and nail to keep golfers blamed for not even touching the ball. Maybe, more people other than the enforcement mentality should be involved in the reviews but who would volunteer to get frustrated by the brick wall mentality in control?

I am not opposed to most of the rules, I just think that they need a lot of streamlining to respect the imprecise nature of the game where trivial inconsequential situations are dealt with far too hashly. Cheaters will cheat regardless of how detailed the rules try to catch them... it is the vast majority of honest golfers that are needlessly treated with disdain by the too precise rules that need layers of decisions on top of them. Sorry if rule challenges are considered as insults to you personally. It is not personal.

[Fore Warned]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

some thoughts for consideration.......

It's a pity that you haven't said anything to show that you've engaged with my explanation of a basic principle of golf that the player cannot do anything to influence the movement of his ball once he has set it in motion without there being a consequence.
.

The principle is a good one and needs to be upheld. Having said that, there is no undermining of the principle if it was tweaked to say that a player can not do anything deliberate to influence the movement of the ball......

Or with the internal consistency of the rules shown in the fact that Rule 4-4 is really no more than the application of Rule 19-2 to a particular situation.

.

No consistency is lost if an exception is made for a double touch in the execution of a stoke. It might lend to greater clarity as the two rules really address different situations.

Or with the clarification that a penalty in this instance (as in others) is not intended to be a punishment but a way of ensuring that the player does not gain from the double hit should it happen to be advantageous. .

Well, it does result in a punishment in those situations where no advantage is gained. Even if the resultant lie is advantageous, one must ask if it is an unfair advantage. Since double hits in the context of a single stroke are unintentional, any advantage gained, or disadvantage suffered, is purely a matter of fate. The argument that the added consequence of a penalty stroke to a double touch is a punishment has as much, if not more, validity than the opposite proposition.

Luck...good and bad, plays an integral part of the game which IMHO should not be penalized.

[LobWedge]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Love the circular justifications. No wonder it is so difficult to streamline and introduce common sense. You can't eliminate a rule because it exists and you did not use the term used in the rule book to define an attempt to strike a ball. Trivial pursuit continues to reign!

There's no "circular justification" as you call it. It's called a hard divider line between when the stoke begins and ends. It's called logic. You should try it sometime.

[Galted]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

There's no "circular justification" as you call it. It's called a hard divider line between when the stoke begins and ends. It's called logic. You should try it sometime.

If that is logic, no thanks... I'll pass. So, with a game where the technique is to swing through the ball, it is logical for the rules to consider a swing complete before it passes the ball. These hard divider lines are so counter-intuitive!

[OKHC]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Professor Chapman, in his entertaining and well-researched book
https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Green-History-Golf/dp/1572431733
observes that:
“perhaps no other rule illustrates so well the linguistic tinkering and fiddling that has gone on during the development of the rules”;
a rule about hitting the ball twice has been around since 1839;
“this penalty may have been directed at players who in this way tried to redirect errant putts”.
With all that history, it may take a few years of lobbying before the rule is changed.
Fore Warned notes that “ … there is an inherent stasis as to its retention by simple virtue of its inbred familiarity, longevity and reluctances to question tradition. Hence the surge of "keepers of the sacred word" to defending its continuity”; I will note that I’m just stating some thoughts --- I’m not feeling inbred, or reluctant to question tradition. I did have to look up “stasis” though.

[Galted]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Professor Chapman, in his entertaining and well-researched book
https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Green-History-Golf/dp/1572431733
observes that:
“perhaps no other rule illustrates so well the linguistic tinkering and fiddling that has gone on during the development of the rules”;
a rule about hitting the ball twice has been around since 1839;
“this penalty may have been directed at players who in this way tried to redirect errant putts”.
With all that history, it may take a few years of lobbying before the rule is changed.
Fore Warned notes that “ … there is an inherent stasis as to its retention by simple virtue of its inbred familiarity, longevity and reluctances to question tradition. Hence the surge of "keepers of the sacred word" to defending its continuity”; I will note that I’m just stating some thoughts --- I’m not feeling inbred, or reluctant to question tradition. I did have to look up “stasis” though.

... and its original intent is still valid, not the extended application to the unintentional secondary contact. May explain a lot about how the application of too many of the rules has spread like a cancer.

[rulie]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

... and its original intent is still valid, not the extended application to the unintentional secondary contact. May explain a lot about how the application of too many of the rules has spread like a cancer.

Going for the "last post wins" prize?

[Shadow]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Must be devastating to some that eliminating the penalty for striking the ball twice is not on the following list of suggested changes for 2019:

1 Reduce lost ball search time from five to three minutes
2 Allow spike mark repairs on greens
3 Allow dropping from any height
4 Emphasizing use of red stakes for water hazards
5 Eliminate the use of club lengths when taking relief

Be patient. It will likely change at the same time getting relief for a ball in a divot changes.

[Jeffc]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

If that is logic, no thanks... I'll pass.

you passed a long time ago

[Jeffc]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Must be devastating to some that eliminating the penalty for striking the ball twice is not on the following list of suggested changes for 2019:

1 Reduce lost ball search time from five to three minutes
2 Allow spike mark repairs on greens
3 Allow dropping from any height
4 Emphasizing use of red stakes for water hazards
5 Eliminate the use of club lengths when taking relief

Be patient. It will likely change at the same time getting relief for a ball in a divot changes.

I like 1, 2, 4. Curious about 3 and 5. Does 3 mean I can drop from 1mm above the grass? For 5 how would you measure distance for relief?

[LobWedge]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

I like 1, 2, 4. Curious about 3 and 5. Does 3 mean I can drop from 1mm above the grass? For 5 how would you measure distance for relief?

I agree with you on 1, 2, and 4. I've been saying for years that ball searches should be cut to 3 minutes. Interested to see how 3 works, and 5 is a puzzle as well...

[Weirfan]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Save 2 minutes per lost ball search, add 5-10 seconds per putt to tap down potential spike marks

[wlorcb]

Re: Strike Rule 14-4 Ball Struck More than Once?

Must be devastating to some that eliminating the penalty for striking the ball twice is not on the following list of suggested changes for 2019:

1 Reduce lost ball search time from five to three minutes
2 Allow spike mark repairs on greens
3 Allow dropping from any height
4 Emphasizing use of red stakes for water hazards
5 Eliminate the use of club lengths when taking relief

Be patient. It will likely change at the same time getting relief for a ball in a divot changes.

Maybe dropping from any height(how about 2 inches) is a precursor to having drops removed completely and replaced with always placing the ball.

Maybe club length will be eliminated and replaced with an actual fixed length(yard or meter) or possible relief will now come in the form of full relief(ball and stance) from the situation(gur, hazard) , place the ball and away you go.

Of course there is always the possibility it is a hoax, as changes to rules occur in even years