2019 OB & Lost Ball Rule

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Also to be answered, is how it can work, if at all, on a short hole which has no fairway or on a hole where off the tee there is a carry over rough ground and your ball is lost short of the fairway.

 

In the specific wording for the LR, it says, "For purposes of this Local Rule, “fairway” means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less."

 

I was present at a seminar put on by the USGA, and when par 3s were discussed, it was noted that the "fairway" reference point could simply be a forward tee box. Of course, walking back and re-teeing remains a viable option, particularly on short par 3s.

[Vindog]

As far as I remember, the new OB and lost ball option has to be implemented as a local rule. The old rules will still apply to 'elite events'.

Is this still the case? More importantly is there a definition of 'elite event'? Will all clubs be mandated to have the local rule in play for normal competitions and social golf? Are any clubs planning on not implementing the local rule?

 

The Owner of the course I play at in Ellsworth stated that for anything under his watch he would NOT be using the local rule. Then again, he sadly passed away about a month ago

[Newby]

Of course, walking back and re-teeing remains a viable option, particularly on short par 3s.

On a short par 3 why would you do anything other than take a provisional?

[Roadking2003]

So based on the replies above most clubs won’t be introducing the LR?

 

I expect almost all will.

[Roadking2003]

Of course, walking back and re-teeing remains a viable option, particularly on short par 3s.

On a short par 3 why would you do anything other than take a provisional?

 

Maybe you were certain your ball was in play. Mistakes happen.

[Augster]

Of course, walking back and re-teeing remains a viable option, particularly on short par 3s.

On a short par 3 why would you do anything other than take a provisional?

 

Maybe you were certain your ball was in play. Mistakes happen.

 

Yes this. And OB you didn’t know about on an unfamiliar course.

 

AND if you were certain your ball was in play, the ball played “provisionally” from the tee wouldn’t be a provisional at all. It’d be your 3rd shot and your ball in play.

[Newby]

 

 

On a short par 3 why would you do anything other than take a provisional?

 

if you were certain your ball was in play, the ball played "provisionally" from the tee wouldn't be a provisional at all. It'd be your 3rd shot and your ball in play.

 

Not if you were certain your ball was in play but may be lost on the course

[Deceptively Short]

So to sum up, some clubs are determined not to, in some areas almost all clubs will but in some areas none will. CONGU haven’t made theit mind up whether it will be applicable or not to qualifying competitions and there is the possibility that at some clubs it may be applicable on selected holes.

 

Not exactly clear with just over 3 months to go. If it remains like this it’s going to get complicated when playing at different clubs either socially or in competitions.

 

The introduction of any rule changes takes a while to bed down (how often have you been quoted ‘old rules’ which have been subsequently changed but the player has not been aware?). This potentially important LR being in place or not is going to make these rule changes the most confusing yet for some.

[Newby]

As a referee, I have no problem with the LR providing it is explained clearly to members and is used only in appropriate circumstances. eg on selected holes.

I've not seen a reference suggesting that this LR could or should be restricted to specified holes. Can you help me with that?

 

The following is from a notice issued in July by Golf Australia to all clubs in Australia.

 

"Clubs may choose to operate it only on a specific hole or holes. For holes with features that make it unusually difficult to establish a relief option, a club may choose to use dropping zones in addition to the new stroke-and-distance local rule option."

 

But we will see what materialises later today

[Sawgrass]

As a referee, I have no problem with the LR providing it is explained clearly to members and is used only in appropriate circumstances. eg on selected holes.

I've not seen a reference suggesting that this LR could or should be restricted to specified holes. Can you help me with that?

 

The following is from a notice issued in July by Golf Australia to all clubs in Australia.

 

"Clubs may choose to operate it only on a specific hole or holes. For holes with features that make it unusually difficult to establish a relief option, a club may choose to use dropping zones in addition to the new stroke-and-distance local rule option."

 

But we will see what materialises later today

Australia? Impressively worldly of you, Newby!

[Colin L]

As a referee, I have no problem with the LR providing it is explained clearly to members and is used only in appropriate circumstances. eg on selected holes.

I've not seen a reference suggesting that this LR could or should be restricted to specified holes. Can you help me with that?

 

The following is from a notice issued in July by Golf Australia to all clubs in Australia.

 

"Clubs may choose to operate it only on a specific hole or holes. For holes with features that make it unusually difficult to establish a relief option, a club may choose to use dropping zones in addition to the new stroke-and-distance local rule option."

 

But we will see what materialises later today

Australia? Impressively worldly of you, Newby!

 

Keyboard travel!

[ihatecats18]

I want to know how in course out of bounds will hold up. IE with a 300 yard drive you can cut a dogleg par 5 to 350 yards. So they will OB that tee box toward that other hole.

[Stuart_G]

I want to know how in course out of bounds will hold up. IE with a 300 yard drive you can cut a dogleg par 5 to 350 yards. So they will OB that tee box toward that other hole.

 

No real change that I can see.

 

(2) Marking Internal Boundaries

 

To maintain the character of a hole or to protect players on adjacent holes, the Committee may establish boundaries between two holes.

If the internal boundary is not connected to other boundaries on the course it is important to mark where the boundary starts and finishes. It is recommended that two stakes be placed side-by-side and at an angle that indicates that the boundary extends indefinitely in the direction desired.

The internal boundary may apply for the play of only one hole or to more than one hole. The hole or holes for which the internal out of bounds applies, and the status of the stakes during the play of holes for which the boundary does not apply, should be clarified through a Local Rule (see Model Local Rule A-4).

[Swisstrader98]

I’m about 98% sure our club and many clubs in our area will NOT adopt the revised rule. Makes sense to me for resort courses, but most golf purists are simply going to push back on the LR.

[mharr]

I'm about 98% sure our club and many clubs in our area will NOT adopt the revised rule. Makes sense to me for resort courses, but most golf purists are simply going to push back on the LR.

 

Golf "purists" should not have a problem, it is (purely) the new Rules of Golf. Golf dinosaurs, on the other hand, will complain, but they also complain about not having hickory shafts and featheries to use.

[Stuart_G]

And just because the rule is in place doesn't mean it has to be used by any particular individual. Those "purists" are still free to still hit a provisional or go back to the tee.

[LeoLeo99]

I predict this rule will be revised in the future iterations of the rules. Within 5 years.

[Newby]

I predict this rule will be revised in the future iterations of the rules. Within 5 years.

Do you mean revised or removed?

How would they revise it?

Why would they do the latter if it is an optional local rule

[Deceptively Short]

@Newby, re the remark earlier in the thread, does CONGU have a stance on this LR? What is your view as to what the majority of English Clubs will do?

[Roadking2003]

I'm about 98% sure our club and many clubs in our area will NOT adopt the revised rule. Makes sense to me for resort courses, but most golf purists are simply going to push back on the LR.

 

Golf "purists" should not have a problem, it is (purely) the new Rules of Golf. Golf dinosaurs, on the other hand, will complain, but they also complain about not having hickory shafts and featheries to use.

 

So, is the definition of a "Golf Purist" one who does not use local rules?

[Colin L]

@Newby, re the remark earlier in the thread, does CONGU have a stance on this LR? What is your view as to what the majority of English Clubs will do?

 

It is possible that CONGU might not permit this LR to be used in qualifying rounds. There has to be concern over handicapping inconsistency since we could well have a situation where a number of clubs have adopted it in full, a number have adopted it for only certain holes, a number have adopted it for ordinary medals but not for their club "majors" - a proportion of which have adopted it for only certain holes - and a number have not adopted it at all. I can see it being considered important to ensure that all qualifying competitions are played throughout CONGU jurisdiction to the same set of rules.

 

It wouldn't be in its scope, in my view, for CONGU to take a stance against the R&A/USGA over its appropriateness as a rule of golf.

[Newby]

@Newby, re the remark earlier in the thread, does CONGU have a stance on this LR? What is your view as to what the majority of English Clubs will do?

CONGU have not yet taken a stance.

No idea what the majority will do. I suspect that the majority of club members have no knowledge it. I haven't yet published it my news letter and I know only a few who have even looked at the R&A website. Many, I'm sure didn't know there was a change until I put out the first newsletter.

However, when I first showed this LR, some time ago, to the comps committee (with diagrams, video and examples from our course), they were supportive. We have another session on it in a couple of weeks.

[deadsolid...shank]

So based on the replies above most clubs won’t be introducing the LR?

 

I would expect most committees to implement the LR. This forum represents the outliers and is not a representative sample.

 

This.

 

Plus, when you are referring to “clubs” I think you are thinking formal events.

 

For day to day play the LR can be used by each group as they see fit. 2 or more players in a group can make their own committee and enact the LR. In the US at least.

 

I can see this creating issues in certain types of men’s day groups. Informal competitions where groups play against the other groups. But nothing official from the course in terms of running the game. Whoever sets up the game will have to be diligent about clarifying things up front.

[Sawgrass]

@Newby, re the remark earlier in the thread, does CONGU have a stance on this LR? What is your view as to what the majority of English Clubs will do?

CONGU have not yet taken a stance.

No idea what the majority will do. I suspect that the majority of club members have no knowledge it. I haven't yet published it my news letter and I know only a few who have even looked at the R&A website. Many, I'm sure didn't know there was a change until I put out the first newsletter.

However, when I first showed this LR, some time ago, to the comps committee (with diagrams, video and examples from our course), they were supportive. We have another session on it in a couple of weeks.

The LR is fairly complicated. I'm curious as to how carefully people who use it will follow it.

 

IMO the oddest thing about it is the fact that you'll (almost?) always have the option to drop in the fairway.

[Deceptively Short]

Thank goodness that this option is being introduced in January, not in the middle of the season (in this hemisphere at least).

Hopefully this will give some time for people to get their heads around it and some commonality to develop. If there is no broad consensus then it will be a recipe for massive confusion.

[Stuart_G]

Sorry, with all this talk, I can't help but think this sounds a lot like Y2K - lots of smoke, no actual fire.

[Roadking2003]

@Newby, re the remark earlier in the thread, does CONGU have a stance on this LR? What is your view as to what the majority of English Clubs will do?

 

It is possible that CONGU might not permit this LR to be used in qualifying rounds. There has to be concern over handicapping inconsistency since we could well have a situation where a number of clubs have adopted it in full, a number have adopted it for only certain holes, a number have adopted it for ordinary medals but not for their club "majors" - a proportion of which have adopted it for only certain holes - and a number have not adopted it at all. I can see it being considered important to ensure that all qualifying competitions are played throughout CONGU jurisdiction to the same set of rules.

 

How is this different from any other local rule? Local rule adaption is highly irregular.

[Roadking2003]

However, when I first showed this LR, some time ago, to the comps committee (with diagrams, video and examples from our course), they were supportive.

 

And why wouldn't they be supportive? It will speed up play and will have a miniscule impact on scores.

[Sawgrass]

However, when I first showed this LR, some time ago, to the comps committee (with diagrams, video and examples from our course), they were supportive.

 

And why wouldn't they be supportive? It will speed up play and will have a miniscule impact on scores.

Excluding this Local Rule (and drop zones, which in my experience never give one such dramatic "help"), you always play your ball to the hole. This is quite different, dropping your way to the hole. Sure, it will speed up play for some, on occasion, if used. But it's a dramatic philosophical change and I, for one, don't feel that comfortable with this particular change.

[Newby]

However, when I first showed this LR, some time ago, to the comps committee (with diagrams, video and examples from our course), they were supportive.

 

And why wouldn't they be supportive? It will speed up play and will have a miniscule impact on scores.

IMO also

And on handicap calculations under the WHS averaging system