Changes YOU'D LIKE TO SEE to the game of golf

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436808187' post='11939952'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436807917' post='11939906'] [quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436800149' post='11938982'] Why the sudden influx of people wanting to make the game easier by doing away with penalty shots? If you want to play your own game with clubs and balls on a golf course go ahead. But don't call it golf. Like Kymar said, making the game easier so you can talk about lower scores is absurd. Work on your game and take pride in doing things the right way. [/quote] Actually, your question has been answered by a number of posters, and with a number of reasonable explanations. That you chose to ignore all of those in order to condescendingly mock your straw man argument (braggin about lower scores) makes it hard to take your post seriously. [/quote] I didn't have time to read the rest of the posts. I saw the OP and another thread with the same tone. People have reasons for playing golf the way they want and that is fine. As I said in the other reply, my generalization that any form of the game besides that played by the rules isn't golf was wrong. The game is hard and it's hard for everybody. It's still fun to me but it's not for other people. [/quote]

Fair enough. If you are honestly curious, and weren't just looking for a chance to jump on a high horse, I suggest reading through the previous pages now, as you will find plenty of answers to answer your original question, none of which are to brag about lower scores.

[nbg352]

[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436807928' post='11939910']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436803703' post='11939348']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436800149' post='11938982']
Why the sudden influx of people wanting to make the game easier by doing away with penalty shots? If you want to play your own game with clubs and balls on a golf course go ahead. But don't call it golf. Like Kymar said, making the game easier so you can talk about lower scores is absurd. Work on your game and take pride in doing things the right way.
[/quote]
Typical arrogant answer to what has became a steamroller issue. If they were to change the rules, would you change with them? If not, what would you be calling the game you'd continue to play? Certainly not golf, I hope..........
[/quote]

If they changed the rules I would play by the rules that were given, just as I do today. Golf never changes regardless of how long you have been playing or your skill level. I guess I enjoy the challenge of the game as it is presented. If my scores are too high or the course is too hard, I work to get better. That's the way I look at things. When I couldn't break 100 I looked at it the same way.

I'll apologize for saying the game some people play isn't "golf". It was a generalization. This subject just ticks me off because I see it as a microcosm of our society as a whole. Everything these days seems to be "too hard".
[/quote]
For some, it's not the difficulty that those rules present, it's a perceived stupidity of the rules themselves, I think.. A lost ball as a 2 stroke penalty as opposed to an equally lost ball in a hazard being a 1 stroke penalty? And the only difference between the two being that we know a lost ball in a hazard is somewhere in the hazard. But lost, nonetheless.

[bub72ck]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436809335' post='11940062']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436807928' post='11939910']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436803703' post='11939348']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436800149' post='11938982']
Why the sudden influx of people wanting to make the game easier by doing away with penalty shots? If you want to play your own game with clubs and balls on a golf course go ahead. But don't call it golf. Like Kymar said, making the game easier so you can talk about lower scores is absurd. Work on your game and take pride in doing things the right way.
[/quote]
Typical arrogant answer to what has became a steamroller issue. If they were to change the rules, would you change with them? If not, what would you be calling the game you'd continue to play? Certainly not golf, I hope..........
[/quote]

If they changed the rules I would play by the rules that were given, just as I do today. Golf never changes regardless of how long you have been playing or your skill level. I guess I enjoy the challenge of the game as it is presented. If my scores are too high or the course is too hard, I work to get better. That's the way I look at things. When I couldn't break 100 I looked at it the same way.

I'll apologize for saying the game some people play isn't "golf". It was a generalization. This subject just ticks me off because I see it as a microcosm of our society as a whole. Everything these days seems to be "too hard".
[/quote]
For some, it's not the difficulty that those rules present, it's a perceived stupidity of the rules themselves, I think.. A lost ball as a 2 stroke penalty as opposed to an equally lost ball in a hazard being a 1 stroke penalty? And the only difference between the two being that we know a lost ball in a hazard is somewhere in the hazard. But lost, nonetheless.
[/quote]

HAHA if the subject is stupidity of the rules I'm all over it. I still don't understand why we can fix a ball mark but not a spike mark, or how I can be assessed a penalty for my ball moving when I didn't touch it. But, unfortunately they are the rules we have to play by. I just see modifying the game to make it "easier" as a slippery slope. As golfers we play with integrity and class. We call penalties on ourselves and face the reality that sometimes our scores aren't very good ( like the guy in the other thread that shot 100 in a tournament but came back to shoot 77 the next day). Sometimes the bounces don't go our way and sometimes they do.

[Sooner7x]

As far as equipment changes I'd like to see them rein in the ball. The pros are hitting it too far and course cant just keep getting longer and longer. A 6800 yard course that can't be lengthened could still be a great venue if you found a way reduce the distance of the top players.


Improvements to Clubs help average players more (forgiveness). As the ball has got longer it helps the longest hitters more, because they have the highest ball speeds.

[mikpga]

Less whining...

[nbg352]

[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436810116' post='11940136']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436809335' post='11940062']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436807928' post='11939910']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436803703' post='11939348']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436800149' post='11938982']
Why the sudden influx of people wanting to make the game easier by doing away with penalty shots? If you want to play your own game with clubs and balls on a golf course go ahead. But don't call it golf. Like Kymar said, making the game easier so you can talk about lower scores is absurd. Work on your game and take pride in doing things the right way.
[/quote]
Typical arrogant answer to what has became a steamroller issue. If they were to change the rules, would you change with them? If not, what would you be calling the game you'd continue to play? Certainly not golf, I hope..........
[/quote]

If they changed the rules I would play by the rules that were given, just as I do today. Golf never changes regardless of how long you have been playing or your skill level. I guess I enjoy the challenge of the game as it is presented. If my scores are too high or the course is too hard, I work to get better. That's the way I look at things. When I couldn't break 100 I looked at it the same way.

I'll apologize for saying the game some people play isn't "golf". It was a generalization. This subject just ticks me off because I see it as a microcosm of our society as a whole. Everything these days seems to be "too hard".
[/quote]
For some, it's not the difficulty that those rules present, it's a perceived stupidity of the rules themselves, I think.. A lost ball as a 2 stroke penalty as opposed to an equally lost ball in a hazard being a 1 stroke penalty? And the only difference between the two being that we know a lost ball in a hazard is somewhere in the hazard. But lost, nonetheless.
[/quote]

HAHA if the subject is stupidity of the rules I'm all over it. I still don't understand why we can fix a ball mark but not a spike mark, or how I can be assessed a penalty for my ball moving when I didn't touch it. But, unfortunately they are the rules we have to play by. I just see modifying the game to make it "easier" as a slippery slope. As golfers we play with integrity and class. We call penalties on ourselves and face the reality that sometimes our scores aren't very good ( like the guy in the other thread that shot 100 in a tournament but came back to shoot 77 the next day). Sometimes the bounces don't go our way and sometimes they do.
[/quote]
Golf is an inherently difficult game, made more difficult by perceived inequities in the rules. Changing certain rules to make them equitable will not necessarily make the game easier. They might knock a couple of unnecessarily penal strokes off in a round but they would do so for everyone. And that is not because those rule changes made the game any easier. Just more equitable. And if the word easier must be used, then how about...those small changes to the rules will make them easier to understand, easier to follow and easier to accept.
As it stands right now, inequity in the rules themselves encourage far too many golfers ( and fine examples of integrity, honour and gentlemanliness off the course and mostly on it) to cheat and garner the displeasure of those who wish to stubbornly follow such arcaneness as represented by our current rules.
Having said that, when I am in an environment that demands it, I follow the existing rules to the letter, as I know them. When playing with my buds on Wednesday afternoon? Not so much........

[Medic]

Serious questions hoping someone can answer.

1. There used to be a stymie rule and it got changed. When and why?

2. The rule regarding a ball moving on the green on its own changed not that long ago. What prompted this change?

3. What was the initial reaction to the Pro V and how far it went by the ruling bodies?

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

and here's another one Medic. I've seen Sam Snead play dudes in those old one day made for TV matches in black and white. they're putting on the green at times with the flag unattended in the hole! so that was legal, why did that ever change?

[crater_divots]

Some people just like tradition for tradition's sake.

I always wonder what these people would've been like at some of the many crossroad events in the history of the world. Would they have burnt "witches" just because it was perceived as ok? Would they have owned slaves? If these seem like a big stretch, consider how dangerous it is to be unwilling to question why the rules exist and the consequences that have occurred on a massive scale just doing things "because that's the way things are done."



By eliminating stroke AND distance, you aren't making the game easier at the highest levels. On the PGA Tour losing a ball (even in thick, deep, out of the way rough) is minimal due to spotters, galleries, cameras, rules officials, etc. The odds of losing a ball on your weekend foursome is pretty high. Lost ball rule modifications wouldn't "make the game easier", but they would level the actual playing field across the entire game.

Likewise with OB. I almost never see OB in play on tour... but most courses that regular golfers play are littered with OB.

To build on that point, the top 25ish% of golfers wouldn't be dramatically affected by these changes because they routinely keep their ball in play. Sure, the modifications might mean a mid-handicap that would normally shoot a 95 now shoots a 91. Who cares, assuming (by analyzing how these changes would impact a round) that he does so in 20 minutes less time then he would've spent (justifiably) spending his full 5 minutes looking for lost balls, and then retreating to hit another to factor in time and distance.


...



The discussion about golf dying always hinges upon getting people involved, growing the game, and [i]keeping[/i] people involved. Speed of play seems to be the biggest hurdle the get over in fixing these issues.

*If you don't "have the time" to read through a discussion in order to make a valid point, then don't "have the time" to type a response that's already been dissected and answered.

[crater_divots]

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436812732' post='11940476'] Serious questions hoping someone can answer. 1. There used to be a stymie rule and it got changed. When and why? 2. The rule regarding a ball moving on the green on its own changed not that long ago. What prompted this change? 3. What was the initial reaction to the Pro V and how far it went by the ruling bodies? [/quote] [quote name='Kenny Lee Puckett' timestamp='1436815799' post='11940822'] and here's another one Medic. I've seen Sam Snead play dudes in those old one day made for TV matches in black and white. they're putting on the green at times with the flag unattended in the hole! so that was legal, why did that ever change? [/quote]

I'm curious to the answers to these questions. Not curious enough to google them, but still interested.

I think that it's a giant misconception that the game hasn't constantly been evolved since it's inception. As with everything, things either adapt to the times, or they die off. The rules of golf are no exception to that rule.

[Medic]

[quote name='Kenny Lee Puckett' timestamp='1436815799' post='11940822']
and here's another one Medic. I've seen Sam Snead play dudes in those old one day made for TV matches in black and white. they're putting on the green at times with the flag unattended in the hole! so that was legal, why did that ever change?
[/quote]

Didn't know that one! Wonder if it was just an option, you had to leave it in, or what the deal was.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436812732' post='11940476']
Serious questions hoping someone can answer.

1. There used to be a stymie rule and it got changed. When and why?

2. The rule regarding a ball moving on the green on its own changed not that long ago. What prompted this change?

3. What was the initial reaction to the Pro V and how far it went by the ruling bodies?
[/quote]1. i do remember reading the stymie was from older match play rules. my search revealed a ball on the green could be left down if it finished atleast 6 inches away from your opponents ball. so they wound up playing around it. I guess in just the right circumstances a good leave became an additional advantage blocking their line. R&A and USGA did away with it in 52'.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436826585' post='11942000']
[quote name='Kenny Lee Puckett' timestamp='1436815799' post='11940822']
and here's another one Medic. I've seen Sam Snead play dudes in those old one day made for TV matches in black and white. they're putting on the green at times with the flag unattended in the hole! so that was legal, why did that ever change?
[/quote]

Didn't know that one! Wonder if it was just an option, you had to leave it in, or what the deal was.
[/quote]to me it looked like business as usual. like there wasn't even a consideration the flag needed to be taken out. Snead is just putting away while nobody is tending the flag, and he's clearly on the green, I'm talking even 15 footers he would be doing this. and really if you think of it as how they used to play, why would you ever need to take the flag out if you'd didn't want to?

[Medic]

[quote name='Kenny Lee Puckett' timestamp='1436836095' post='11942918']
[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436812732' post='11940476']
Serious questions hoping someone can answer.

1. There used to be a stymie rule and it got changed. When and why?

2. The rule regarding a ball moving on the green on its own changed not that long ago. What prompted this change?

3. What was the initial reaction to the Pro V and how far it went by the ruling bodies?
[/quote]1. the stymie was apparently a relic from older match play rules only. a ball on could be left down if it finished atleast 6 inches away from your opponents ball. so they wound up playing around it. I guess in just the right circumstances a good leave became an additional advantage blocking their line. R&A and USGA did away with it in 52'.
[/quote]

Thanks!

Really gets me thinking - wonder what it might be like to research some of the old rules that have now gone by the wayside and host one annual tourney where those rules are back in play. We are constantly doing tourneys for charity and this might generate some new interest. So long, that is, as things are made crystal clear up front. (We played in a two on two greensomes match last year - was a blast. I could see how adding stymies and leaving the flag in optionally could make for some interesting play)

[thug the bunny]

[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436810116' post='11940136']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436809335' post='11940062']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436807928' post='11939910']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1436803703' post='11939348']
[quote name='bub72ck' timestamp='1436800149' post='11938982']
Why the sudden influx of people wanting to make the game easier by doing away with penalty shots? If you want to play your own game with clubs and balls on a golf course go ahead. But don't call it golf. Like Kymar said, making the game easier so you can talk about lower scores is absurd. Work on your game and take pride in doing things the right way.
[/quote]
Typical arrogant answer to what has became a steamroller issue. If they were to change the rules, would you change with them? If not, what would you be calling the game you'd continue to play? Certainly not golf, I hope..........
[/quote]

If they changed the rules I would play by the rules that were given, just as I do today. Golf never changes regardless of how long you have been playing or your skill level. I guess I enjoy the challenge of the game as it is presented. If my scores are too high or the course is too hard, I work to get better. That's the way I look at things. When I couldn't break 100 I looked at it the same way.

I'll apologize for saying the game some people play isn't "golf". It was a generalization. This subject just ticks me off because I see it as a microcosm of our society as a whole. Everything these days seems to be "too hard".
[/quote]
For some, it's not the difficulty that those rules present, it's a perceived stupidity of the rules themselves, I think.. A lost ball as a 2 stroke penalty as opposed to an equally lost ball in a hazard being a 1 stroke penalty? And the only difference between the two being that we know a lost ball in a hazard is somewhere in the hazard. But lost, nonetheless.
[/quote]

HAHA if the subject is stupidity of the rules I'm all over it. I still don't understand why we can fix a ball mark but not a spike mark, or how I can be assessed a penalty for my ball moving when I didn't touch it. But, unfortunately they are the rules we have to play by. I just see modifying the game to make it "easier" as a slippery slope. As golfers we play with integrity and class. We call penalties on ourselves and face the reality that sometimes our scores aren't very good ( like the guy in the other thread that shot 100 in a tournament but came back to shoot 77 the next day). Sometimes the bounces don't go our way and sometimes they do.
[/quote]

And I think that is exactly what people have been trying to point out here about OB vs. hazard penalties - it is a rule that doesn't make sense. Earlier I asked if anyone knew why the OB penalty was more penal than the hazard penalty, and the best answer I got was "you're not supposed to hit your ball into a hazard, but you're really not supposed to hit your ball OB". Why? Just the fact that OB may not be golf course property has nothing to do with 'how bad' your shot was. All the OB I have ever seen is located more or less the same distance from the playing areas as hazards, deep woods, etc. And, if the OB area is that far from the playing area, that in itself is adequate penalty esp if you add a stroke. Just doesn't make sense.

[KillerPenguin]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1435626561' post='11858850']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1435624932' post='11858644']
Sandbaggers should be shot.
[/quote]

The pot calling the kettle black is not a strong enough phrase here...
[/quote]
Maybe he's volunteering to commit suicide?

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436812732' post='11940476']
1. There used to be a stymie rule and it got changed. When and why?
[/quote]
The stymie rule had been modified a coupled times in history. Originally the only ball on the green that could be removed while others played was one that lie within 6 inches of the ball in play. When removed the ball could not be cleaned and had to be returned just as it was removed. It was later changed to add a ball that lays within 6 inches of the hole can be removed. Being that the stymie rule was specifically for match usage, it was abandoned for the larger championships and as more and more players were electing to play medal rather than match it was removed from the rules in 1952.

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436812732' post='11940476']
3. What was the initial reaction to the Pro V and how far it went by the ruling bodies?
[/quote]

When the Pro V was first released it was not the longest ball on the market. What made the ball so special was its combination of both length and control. The best players in the world always avoided the distance balls due to their lack of control, but with the Pro V they were able to get a ball that performed nearly as well as their tour balata or professional while having the added bonus of going nearly as far as the distance balls. If the Pro V did not have such exceptional control when it was released it would not have been the gamebreaker we know it as today.

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1436836879' post='11943006']

Really gets me thinking - wonder what it might be like to research some of the old rules that have now gone by the wayside and host one annual tourney where those rules are back in play. We are constantly doing tourneys for charity and this might generate some new interest. So long, that is, as things are made crystal clear up front. (We played in a two on two greensomes match last year - was a blast. I could see how adding stymies and leaving the flag in optionally could make for some interesting play)
[/quote]

The World Hickory Match Play Championship is conducted under a rule set from 1923. This includes such rules as the stymie as well as the over the back drop. The first year it was conducted there was quite a discussion over the nuances of the stymie rule. Its something we don't think about today but It comes into play on nearly every hole and when you add in the modern tendency to concede putts it becomes rather interesting to determine if a ball is in fact stymied or not. As a stymied ball is not permitted to concede their opponents putt. This is also rather magnified under a team match environment.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1436882953' post='11945726']
And I think that is exactly what people have been trying to point out here about OB vs. hazard penalties - it is a rule that doesn't make sense. Earlier I asked if anyone knew why the OB penalty was more penal than the hazard penalty, and the best answer I got was "you're not supposed to hit your ball into a hazard, but you're really not supposed to hit your ball OB". Why? Just the fact that OB may not be golf course property has nothing to do with 'how bad' your shot was. All the OB I have ever seen is located more or less the same distance from the playing areas as hazards, deep woods, etc. And, if the OB area is that far from the playing area, that in itself is adequate penalty esp if you add a stroke. Just doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Not to belabor this point, but I played a course today where 18 green was tucked so close to an apartment complex that they were effecively grandstands. 5 yards long, 10 yards left or right, and you are OB. With a back flag position (as it was today), a hard bounce could be the difference between a birdie putt and a long walk back to the fairway.

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436892691' post='11947106']
[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1436882953' post='11945726']
And I think that is exactly what people have been trying to point out here about OB vs. hazard penalties - it is a rule that doesn't make sense. Earlier I asked if anyone knew why the OB penalty was more penal than the hazard penalty, and the best answer I got was "you're not supposed to hit your ball into a hazard, but you're really not supposed to hit your ball OB". Why? Just the fact that OB may not be golf course property has nothing to do with 'how bad' your shot was. All the OB I have ever seen is located more or less the same distance from the playing areas as hazards, deep woods, etc. And, if the OB area is that far from the playing area, that in itself is adequate penalty esp if you add a stroke. Just doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Not to belabor this point, but I played a course today where 18 green was tucked so close to an apartment complex that they were effecively grandstands. 5 yards long, 10 yards left or right, and you are OB. With a back flag position (as it was today), a hard bounce could be the difference between a birdie putt and a long walk back to the fairway.
[/quote]

Was it not possible to land the ball short the green and run the ball back to the hole, eliminating the possibility of hitting the ball OB?

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436892853' post='11947134'] [quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436892691' post='11947106'] [quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1436882953' post='11945726'] And I think that is exactly what people have been trying to point out here about OB vs. hazard penalties - it is a rule that doesn't make sense. Earlier I asked if anyone knew why the OB penalty was more penal than the hazard penalty, and the best answer I got was "you're not supposed to hit your ball into a hazard, but you're really not supposed to hit your ball OB". Why? Just the fact that OB may not be golf course property has nothing to do with 'how bad' your shot was. All the OB I have ever seen is located more or less the same distance from the playing areas as hazards, deep woods, etc. And, if the OB area is that far from the playing area, that in itself is adequate penalty esp if you add a stroke. Just doesn't make sense. [/quote] Not to belabor this point, but I played a course today where 18 green was tucked so close to an apartment complex that they were effecively grandstands. 5 yards long, 10 yards left or right, and you are OB. With a back flag position (as it was today), a hard bounce could be the difference between a birdie putt and a long walk back to the fairway. [/quote] Was it not possible to land the ball short the green and run the ball back to the hole, eliminating the possibility of hitting the ball OB? [/quote]

Certainly. Just like if there was, say, a water hazard there instead. The difference being, if it were a water hazard, it would be less penal. And, as the poster I originally responded to stated, I haven't heard a great reason for why that is, or why that makes sense for today's game.

If the argument goes that OB should be punished severely because you are off the property, and the course doesn't want you hitting golf balls off the property, then why tuck a green in a spot where you are effectively using OB as a hazard? If there is a better explanation for the extra penalty, then I am all ears.

[rsj1360]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436892691' post='11947106']
[quote name='thug the bunny' timestamp='1436882953' post='11945726']
And I think that is exactly what people have been trying to point out here about OB vs. hazard penalties - it is a rule that doesn't make sense. Earlier I asked if anyone knew why the OB penalty was more penal than the hazard penalty, and the best answer I got was "you're not supposed to hit your ball into a hazard, but you're really not supposed to hit your ball OB". Why? Just the fact that OB may not be golf course property has nothing to do with 'how bad' your shot was. All the OB I have ever seen is located more or less the same distance from the playing areas as hazards, deep woods, etc. And, if the OB area is that far from the playing area, that in itself is adequate penalty esp if you add a stroke. Just doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Not to belabor this point, but I played a course today where 18 green was tucked so close to an apartment complex that they were effecively grandstands. 5 yards long, 10 yards left or right, and you are OB. With a back flag position (as it was today), a hard bounce could be the difference between a birdie putt and a long walk back to the fairway.
[/quote]
This makes me think of something that occurred the other day. If I were king of the golf world I'd implement a rule that says no houses/yards are permitted within X (lets say 100) yards of the playing area of the course. this would help out in many ares of complaints.

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436894425' post='11947352']

Certainly. Just like if there was, say, a water hazard there instead. The difference being, if it were a water hazard, it would be less penal. And, as the poster I originally responded to stated, I haven't heard a great reason for why that is, or why that makes sense for today's game.

If the argument goes that OB should be punished severely because you are off the property, and the course doesn't want you hitting golf balls off the property, then why tuck a green in a spot where you are effectively using OB as a hazard? If there is a better explanation for the extra penalty, then I am all ears.
[/quote]

To begin with, your debate about the rules seems to be pointed toward not the body that creates the rules, but rather the golf course developers and architects. That is a valid debate, but not something the USGA can control anymore than what they currently do. The USGA can not stop developers and architects from building courses that use too narrow of playing corridors and most of the scenarios in this thread where people complain about OB is a result of this.

The USGA views OB as the edge of the playing area and off of the golf course, while water hazards are viewed as integral parts of the golf course and in a similar perspective to a bunker. From this perspective, a ball hit into a water hazard could possibly be playable or possibly be unplayable. Being that their is a potential playable option from a hazard, the drop rules for a ball in a hazard are just simply a situation specific unplayable lie rule. This rule directs the player to "remove" their ball from the hazard area to a designated point and the proceed with the unplayable lie rule from that point. The USGA foresees all this happening within the grounds for golfing. While OB is seen as outside of the grounds for golfing and thus a ball hit foul must be replayed from the previous spot to preserve continuity of play within the grounds.

It might be that in various situations the magnitude of the shot hit into a water hazard and hit out of bounds is the same, but this is further from the truth within the scope of the rules.

[Full Melt]

A shot clock lol

I'm only half joking....

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436896298' post='11947602']
[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436894425' post='11947352']
Certainly. Just like if there was, say, a water hazard there instead. The difference being, if it were a water hazard, it would be less penal. And, as the poster I originally responded to stated, I haven't heard a great reason for why that is, or why that makes sense for today's game.

If the argument goes that OB should be punished severely because you are off the property, and the course doesn't want you hitting golf balls off the property, then why tuck a green in a spot where you are effectively using OB as a hazard? If there is a better explanation for the extra penalty, then I am all ears.
[/quote]

To begin with, your debate about the rules seems to be pointed toward not the body that creates the rules, but rather the golf course developers and architects. That is a valid debate, but not something the USGA can control anymore than what they currently do. The USGA can not stop developers and architects from building courses that use too narrow of playing corridors and most of the scenarios in this thread where people complain about OB is a result of this.

The USGA views OB as the edge of the playing area and off of the golf course, while water hazards are viewed as integral parts of the golf course and in a similar perspective to a bunker. From this perspective, a ball hit into a water hazard could possibly be playable or possibly be unplayable. Being that their is a potential playable option from a hazard, the drop rules for a ball in a hazard are just simply a situation specific unplayable lie rule. This rule directs the player to "remove" their ball from the hazard area to a designated point and the proceed with the unplayable lie rule from that point. The USGA foresees all this happening within the grounds for golfing. [b]While OB is seen as outside of the grounds for golfing and thus a ball hit foul must be replayed from the previous spot to preserve continuity of play within the grounds.[/b]

It might be that in various situations the magnitude of the shot hit into a water hazard and hit out of bounds is the same, but this is further from the truth within the scope of the rules.
[/quote]

I have no issue with anything you stated regarding hazards. However, I still see no justification for the OB penalty (in bold above). Why, from a logical standpoint, must it be replayed from the previous spot? Why not allow for a drop at the point where it crossed OB? As mentioned previously, this is a much more workable solution IMO - if the OB is far from the field of play, you will be dropping in a bad location anyway, effectively making it more than a one stroke penalty. If the course is designed poorly, and the OB is very close to the green/fairway, then a small miss will only be punished by a one-stroke penalty. In a perfect world, every course would have lots of space and OB would be in the far corners, away from play. But given that this is logistically impossible, I think that the above is a more fair way of determining an appropriate penalty.

You are free to disagree, that is just my 2 cents.

[rlconklin]

[quote name='Argonne69' timestamp='1435700902' post='11864914']
[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1435699062' post='11864692']
[quote name='Medic' timestamp='1435695129' post='11864318']
Not asking for anything better than what should have been in the first place.
[/quote]

This is where we differ. What should have been there is exactly what you get, nothing more nothing less. The odds of hitting a ball in the fairway and finding a divot are the same as hitting a ball in the rough and finding a perfect lie. If you remove a ball from a divot because its unfair a good shot was punished, would you also bury your ball in the rough for the same reason? Golf has never been suppose to be played over pristine, perfectly fair grounds. Its the randomness and possibility of the unexpected that makes the game so interesting.
[/quote]

Lol. Apparently the pro's playing Chambers Bay didn't get the memo, based on the amount of kvetching. I think so many have become accustom to highly manicured courses, [b]and they forget that golf was invented on crap land that was useless for anything else.[/b]
[/quote]

You mean like Chambers Bay??

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436897942' post='11947786']
[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436896298' post='11947602']
[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436894425' post='11947352']
Certainly. Just like if there was, say, a water hazard there instead. The difference being, if it were a water hazard, it would be less penal. And, as the poster I originally responded to stated, I haven't heard a great reason for why that is, or why that makes sense for today's game.

If the argument goes that OB should be punished severely because you are off the property, and the course doesn't want you hitting golf balls off the property, then why tuck a green in a spot where you are effectively using OB as a hazard? If there is a better explanation for the extra penalty, then I am all ears.
[/quote]

To begin with, your debate about the rules seems to be pointed toward not the body that creates the rules, but rather the golf course developers and architects. That is a valid debate, but not something the USGA can control anymore than what they currently do. The USGA can not stop developers and architects from building courses that use too narrow of playing corridors and most of the scenarios in this thread where people complain about OB is a result of this.

The USGA views OB as the edge of the playing area and off of the golf course, while water hazards are viewed as integral parts of the golf course and in a similar perspective to a bunker. From this perspective, a ball hit into a water hazard could possibly be playable or possibly be unplayable. Being that their is a potential playable option from a hazard, the drop rules for a ball in a hazard are just simply a situation specific unplayable lie rule. This rule directs the player to "remove" their ball from the hazard area to a designated point and the proceed with the unplayable lie rule from that point. The USGA foresees all this happening within the grounds for golfing. [b]While OB is seen as outside of the grounds for golfing and thus a ball hit foul must be replayed from the previous spot to preserve continuity of play within the grounds.[/b]

It might be that in various situations the magnitude of the shot hit into a water hazard and hit out of bounds is the same, but this is further from the truth within the scope of the rules.
[/quote]

I have no issue with anything you stated regarding hazards. However, I still see no justification for the OB penalty (in bold above). Why, from a logical standpoint, must it be replayed from the previous spot? Why not allow for a drop at the point where it crossed OB? As mentioned previously, this is a much more workable solution IMO - if the OB is far from the field of play, you will be dropping in a bad location anyway, effectively making it more than a one stroke penalty. If the course is designed poorly, and the OB is very close to the green/fairway, then a small miss will only be punished by a one-stroke penalty. In a perfect world, every course would have lots of space and OB would be in the far corners, away from play. But given that this is logistically impossible, I think that the above is a more fair way of determining an appropriate penalty.

You are free to disagree, that is just my 2 cents.
[/quote]

It wasn't until 1886 that the term Out Of Bounds was even established on the Isle of White, At which time the penalty was stroke and distance. In 1899 the R&A defined OB as "any place outside the defined or recognized boundaries of the course" and their penalty was distance only. Starting in 1920, The penalty became Stroke and Distance for both the USGA and R&A. Since that time The penalty for a ball out of bounds has been consistently Stroke and Distance, with a few exceptions. From 1947-52 for the USGA and from 1950-52 for the R&A they returned to a Distance penalty only. In the early 60's the USGA experimented with a rule that permitted a ball to be dropped within 2 club lengths of the OB line when the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe", but all forms of that rule were rescinded by 1968.

Even today the majority of holes on the worlds golf courses do not have an OB hazard in play. The situation is still more rare than common. I've found the rules are written in such a way provide a base decision for those rare situations within common play. Much like the debate about a ball that winds up in a divot in the fairway. By ruling that you don't get relief helps to alleviate the issue of a player(s) trying to evaluate the status of a divot and if it permits relief or not. The out of bounds rule is written to provide a universal decision for a ball that goes off the field of play, regardless if the boundary is 10 yards away or 100 yards away. When the R&A first introduced their OB rule in 1899, The only out of bounds on the Old course would have been along the 17th and 18th holes, very close to the field of play. At that time, they felt that a shot hit into the stationmasters shed or along Station Rd. was poor enough it required being replayed rather dropped where it left the golfing grounds.

Why do you believe that in golf, distance should be rewarded when a player strikes a a ball beyond the field of play? Remember, to be universally appropriate, one can not judge the proximity of the boundary to the player when making this decision.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436904584' post='11948602']
[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436897942' post='11947786']
[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436896298' post='11947602']
[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436894425' post='11947352']
Certainly. Just like if there was, say, a water hazard there instead. The difference being, if it were a water hazard, it would be less penal. And, as the poster I originally responded to stated, I haven't heard a great reason for why that is, or why that makes sense for today's game.

If the argument goes that OB should be punished severely because you are off the property, and the course doesn't want you hitting golf balls off the property, then why tuck a green in a spot where you are effectively using OB as a hazard? If there is a better explanation for the extra penalty, then I am all ears.
[/quote]

To begin with, your debate about the rules seems to be pointed toward not the body that creates the rules, but rather the golf course developers and architects. That is a valid debate, but not something the USGA can control anymore than what they currently do. The USGA can not stop developers and architects from building courses that use too narrow of playing corridors and most of the scenarios in this thread where people complain about OB is a result of this.

The USGA views OB as the edge of the playing area and off of the golf course, while water hazards are viewed as integral parts of the golf course and in a similar perspective to a bunker. From this perspective, a ball hit into a water hazard could possibly be playable or possibly be unplayable. Being that their is a potential playable option from a hazard, the drop rules for a ball in a hazard are just simply a situation specific unplayable lie rule. This rule directs the player to "remove" their ball from the hazard area to a designated point and the proceed with the unplayable lie rule from that point. The USGA foresees all this happening within the grounds for golfing. [b]While OB is seen as outside of the grounds for golfing and thus a ball hit foul must be replayed from the previous spot to preserve continuity of play within the grounds.[/b]

It might be that in various situations the magnitude of the shot hit into a water hazard and hit out of bounds is the same, but this is further from the truth within the scope of the rules.
[/quote]

I have no issue with anything you stated regarding hazards. However, I still see no justification for the OB penalty (in bold above). Why, from a logical standpoint, must it be replayed from the previous spot? Why not allow for a drop at the point where it crossed OB? As mentioned previously, this is a much more workable solution IMO - if the OB is far from the field of play, you will be dropping in a bad location anyway, effectively making it more than a one stroke penalty. If the course is designed poorly, and the OB is very close to the green/fairway, then a small miss will only be punished by a one-stroke penalty. In a perfect world, every course would have lots of space and OB would be in the far corners, away from play. But given that this is logistically impossible, I think that the above is a more fair way of determining an appropriate penalty.

You are free to disagree, that is just my 2 cents.
[/quote]

It wasn't until 1886 that the term Out Of Bounds was even established on the Isle of White, At which time the penalty was stroke and distance. In 1899 the R&A defined OB as "any place outside the defined or recognized boundaries of the course" and their penalty was distance only. Starting in 1920, The penalty became Stroke and Distance for both the USGA and R&A. Since that time The penalty for a ball out of bounds has been consistently Stroke and Distance, with a few exceptions. From 1947-52 for the USGA and from 1950-52 for the R&A they returned to a Distance penalty only. In the early 60's the USGA experimented with a rule that permitted a ball to be dropped within 2 club lengths of the OB line when the penalty of stroke and distance would be "unduly severe", but all forms of that rule were rescinded by 1968.

Even today the majority of holes on the worlds golf courses do not have an OB hazard in play. The situation is still more rare than common. I've found the rules are written in such a way provide a base decision for those rare situations within common play. Much like the debate about a ball that winds up in a divot in the fairway. By ruling that you don't get relief helps to alleviate the issue of a player(s) trying to evaluate the status of a divot and if it permits relief or not. The out of bounds rule is written to provide a universal decision for a ball that goes off the field of play, regardless if the boundary is 10 yards away or 100 yards away. When the R&A first introduced their OB rule in 1899, The only out of bounds on the Old course would have been along the 17th and 18th holes, very close to the field of play. At that time, they felt that a shot hit into the stationmasters shed or along Station Rd. was poor enough it required being replayed rather dropped where it left the golfing grounds.

Why do you believe that in golf, distance should be rewarded when a player strikes a a ball beyond the field of play? Remember, to be universally appropriate, one can not judge the proximity of the boundary to the player when making this decision.
[/quote]

Very interesting history, that's fascinating stuff. However, I still don't see a clear justification for the penalty. To address a couple things:

1.) In regards to the comparison to fairway divots, the situations are completely different. I can certainly see how allowing a free drop from a fairway divot would be open to interpretation and abuse. If OB were a drop on the line the ball crossed OB, there is no interpretation - it is a static ruling for all OB cases. The only guesswork is where the ball crossed, and this is already done on hazards.

A stroke and distance penalty on all OB shots is no more universal of a decision than a drop and stroke penalty on all OB shots is. In both cases, there is one blanket ruling for all OB shots. The only difference is what that penalty should be.

2.) In regards to the rarity of OB, I don't see how that should have any impact on the punishment doled out when it occurs. I believe the rules of golf have touched on some pretty rare, obscure scenarios, and obviously, OB is not THAT rare. Quite frankly, the reason this is supported by many golfers is because on muni or lower cost courses, OB is not rare at all.

3.) Regarding the Old Course example, I think this supports my point. Times have changed to the point where, if you live in an urban/suburban area, it's hard to find a course that doesn't have a significant amount of OB that comes into play on even slight mishits. This is only going to get worse I imagine, as land is expensive in those areas, and golf courses are desirable places to cram houses around.

4.) To answer your final question as to why I believe distance should be "rewarded" for hitting the ball out of play: I believe it is a more accurate punishment, in general, to the (lack of) quality of the shot. Why should a 100 yard shank straight right be punished the same as a shot that is 10 yards over the green? The way golf courses are being created and setup, this is a real possibility.

On top of that, I believe it levels the playing field for mid-high handicappers. If course designers at cheaper, more "cramped" courses are going to use OB as a hazard, the penalty should reflect it. I've seen it time and again - tucking a green amongst condos to make it more difficult is just a cheaper alternative to a hazard, or having more room to actually make the course difficult. This might not be a problem at tour stops or high end private clubs, but it certainly is on a lot of relatively cheap public courses.

And my last argument for it would be to speed up pace of play. I don't ever want to see an amateur backtrack from the fairway to the tee box. Even playing a provisional can slow down a group if they aren't prepared, not to mention if you run into a wild driver who needs to hit multiple provisionals.

[hollabachgt]

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436907675' post='11948940']
1.) In regards to the comparison to fairway divots, the situations are completely different. I can certainly see how allowing a free drop from a fairway divot would be open to interpretation and abuse. If OB were a drop on the line the ball crossed OB, there is no interpretation - it is a static ruling for all OB cases. The only guesswork is where the ball crossed, and this is already done on hazards.
[/quote]

The divot analogy was used to describe a scenario where the rules are written in such a way to prevent possible "grey" situations in which a player may take improper advantage of the rule or players may argue over the intent of the rule, In order to curb this behavior the rules don't permit relief. When it comes to OB, the rules is doing the same thing. Anything less than stroke and distance leaves open the "grey" in the rules where intent comes into play

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436907675' post='11948940']
A stroke and distance penalty on all OB shots is no more universal of a decision than a drop and stroke penalty on all OB shots is. In both cases, there is one blanket ruling for all OB shots. The only difference is what that penalty should be.
[/quote]

When the USGA explored this possibile penalty in the early 60's the rule described a situation where the player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option. While it seems rather straightforward, the USGA deemed it anything but and restored the rule back to stroke and distance.

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436907675' post='11948940']
4.) To answer your final question as to why I believe distance should be "rewarded" for hitting the ball out of play: I believe it is a more accurate punishment, in general, to the (lack of) quality of the shot. Why should a 100 yard shank straight right be punished the same as a shot that is 10 yards over the green? The way golf courses are being created and setup, this is a real possibility.
[/quote]

Why is it more accurate. In the scenario where out of bounds is dangerously close to the line of the play, isn't in the skill of the player to properly avoid the out of bounds, as it is on both the tee shot and approach into the 17th at St. Andrews?

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436907675' post='11948940']
On top of that, I believe it levels the playing field for mid-high handicappers. If course designers at cheaper, more "cramped" courses are going to use OB as a hazard, the penalty should reflect it. I've seen it time and again - tucking a green amongst condos to make it more difficult is just a cheaper alternative to a hazard, or having more room to actually make the course difficult. This might not be a problem at tour stops or high end private clubs, but it certainly is on a lot of relatively cheap public courses.
[/quote]

I'd argue that the developer/architect is placing the green among condos to sell condos, not as a hazard.

[quote name='SeaOfGreen10' timestamp='1436907675' post='11948940']
And my last argument for it would be to speed up pace of play. I don't ever want to see an amateur backtrack from the fairway to the tee box. Even playing a provisional can slow down a group if they aren't prepared, not to mention if you run into a wild driver who needs to hit multiple provisionals.
[/quote]

An additional tee shot among a group of 4 will take less than a minute to hit. If the player in question is unable to keep their golf ball on the course with the driver then it would be in their best interest to hit a club off of the tee that will put them in play. At the same time, since the handicap system included per hole maximums if a player hits multiple shots out of play they would be better off picking up with their maximum. Pace of play in this situation has nothing to do with how the rules are written but rather the individual.

[SeaOfGreen10]

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436910612' post='11949220']

The divot analogy was used to describe a scenario where the rules are written in such a way to prevent possible "grey" situations in which a player may take improper advantage of the rule or players may argue over the intent of the rule, In order to curb this behavior the rules don't permit relief. When it comes to OB, the rules is doing the same thing. Anything less than stroke and distance leaves open the "grey" in the rules where intent comes into play
[/quote]

How could the intent of the rule come into play at all? The only "grey" area is determining where the ball crossed OB, which is similar to what is done for hazards. If leaves too much room for interpretation, then why do this for a hazard? If you truly believe that drop would be too much grey area, do you also believe a hazard or unplayable should be stroke and distance?

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436910612' post='11949220']

When the USGA explored this possibile penalty in the early 60's the rule described a situation where the player could drop a ball within two club-lengths of where the original ball crossed the out of bounds line. Reasonable evidence was required both that the ball had gone out of bounds and as to the point of crossing. In the absence of either, stroke and distance was the only option. While it seems rather straightforward, the USGA deemed it anything but and restored the rule back to stroke and distance.
[/quote]

Any idea what wasn't straightforward about "drop where the ball crossed into OB"? It is done all the time for balls hit into a hazard, so I am not sure why it would suddenly become so complex when dealing with OB. Not saying the USGA didn't have a good reason, but short of hearing that reason, I'm not really willing to blindly take their word for it.

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436910612' post='11949220']

Why is it more accurate. In the scenario where out of bounds is dangerously close to the line of the play, isn't in the skill of the player to properly avoid the out of bounds, as it is on both the tee shot and approach into the 17th at St. Andrews?
[/quote]

I ask again: If a fair punishment for hitting it into a bad spot is stroke and distance, why not make that the penalty for a hazard as well? If I hit it into an "unplayable" spot, why should I be rewarded with distance? Could it be because OB is supposed to be far from the normal field of play, but that simply isn't the case anymore?

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436910612' post='11949220']

I'd argue that the developer/architect is placing the green among condos to sell condos, not as a hazard.
[/quote]

The most likely scenario is that the developers realized that if they used the land near the green for condos instead of a sand trap/pond/etc, they could make money off the condos while simultaneously making the hole more difficult. Win/win for them. And honestly, when the only trouble around a green is OB....they knew what they were doing.

[quote name='hollabachgt' timestamp='1436910612' post='11949220']

An additional tee shot among a group of 4 will take less than a minute to hit. If the player in question is unable to keep their golf ball on the course with the driver then it would be in their best interest to hit a club off of the tee that will put them in play. At the same time, since the handicap system included per hole maximums if a player hits multiple shots out of play they would be better off picking up with their maximum. Pace of play in this situation has nothing to do with how the rules are written but rather the individual.
[/quote]

You are telling me that you honestly believe that anywhere near the majority of golfers will be able to 1.) have a second ball ready, tee it up, get set and hit in less than a minute, 2.) make the smart but conservative decision to stop hitting their driver, and 3.) stop playing a hole and take a max score per handicap rules?

I would love if the USGA would start bringing pace of play concerns into rules decision, at least at the amateur level. Seems fairly important in growing the game. I know it won't happen, but I can dream.