USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Newby]

The lost ball is one of the rules that I struggle the most with currently. There have been multiple occasions in which the entire group says it's right here and nobody can find it, on a shot that should be on the fairway or the edge. When the majority of a group agrees a ball should be here does that player really deserve the current penalty. IMO if cameras and, or spectators were present the ball is found. The practical issue is how do you write this into a rule, what is a majority, etc. However, with all of the brain power being dedicated to this topic I have to believe somebody much smarter than I can come up with something.

 

Well you'd never get a majority if you were playing a match against me ;)

[4Par]

The lost ball is one of the rules that I struggle the most with currently. There have been multiple occasions in which the entire group says it's right here and nobody can find it, on a shot that should be on the fairway or the edge.

 

Well it's not there... lol.... so there is a rule which dictates play at that point.

[TheCityGame]

The lost ball is one of the rules that I struggle the most with currently. There have been multiple occasions in which the entire group says it's right here and nobody can find it, on a shot that should be on the fairway or the edge. When the majority of a group agrees a ball should be here does that player really deserve the current penalty. IMO if cameras and, or spectators were present the ball is found. The practical issue is how do you write this into a rule, what is a majority, etc. However, with all of the brain power being dedicated to this topic I have to believe somebody much smarter than I can come up with something.

The very fact that the majority of the group says the ball is "right here" and the ball is not "right here" indicates that relying on the knowledge of the group is faulty. The ball is lost and there's only one good way to handle that.

 

What you wrote will never ever ever be close to a rule of golf.

 

There are provisions for a missing ball when there's an outside agency.

[Roadking2003]

The lost ball is one of the rules that I struggle the most with currently. There have been multiple occasions in which the entire group says it's right here and nobody can find it, on a shot that should be on the fairway or the edge. When the majority of a group agrees a ball should be here does that player really deserve the current penalty. IMO if cameras and, or spectators were present the ball is found. The practical issue is how do you write this into a rule, what is a majority, etc. However, with all of the brain power being dedicated to this topic I have to believe somebody much smarter than I can come up with something.

 

If the rule was changed to be distance only, the problem would be solved.

[Shilgy]

I was talking to a music playing(on the course) friend and he asked if that rule has been changed. I told him I did not think so. Has anyone seen anything about that being allowed?

 

If not, and with most of these changes, my faith in the USGA is being restored. NTTC*

 

 

*not that they care

[jslane57]

I'd also think that bifurcation must be in minds of the governing bodies. Some of these sweeping changes are designed to make things better, easier, but they also take away accountability. I think the pros who are complaining are not seeing the big picture. I see things getting more strict for them, but less strict for the regular golfer in both accountability and equipment...

[rogolf]

The lost ball is one of the rules that I struggle the most with currently. There have been multiple occasions in which the entire group says it's right here and nobody can find it, on a shot that should be on the fairway or the edge. When the majority of a group agrees a ball should be here does that player really deserve the current penalty. IMO if cameras and, or spectators were present the ball is found. The practical issue is how do you write this into a rule, what is a majority, etc. However, with all of the brain power being dedicated to this topic I have to believe somebody much smarter than I can come up with something.

 

If the rule was changed to be distance only, the problem would be solved.

 

You will have to explain this to me. What is the problem and how will "distance only" solve it? Is it the penalty stroke that is the problem?

[HatsForBats]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

[rogolf]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

You'll have to respect that the idea of providing free relief from divot holes is nonsense to many posters/readers here, including me.

[jslane57]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

You'll have to respect that the idea of providing free relief from divot holes is nonsense to many posters/readers here, including me.

The divot one is hard for me. I totally get both sides of the story. I lean toward treating a divot as ground under repair. Why? Because the course changes as the day goes. The afternoon folks simply have more divots to deal with as the rounds before them were played from the same tees, etc.

[Forty]

I know a ball in a divot is a big topic on this thread but the current way it's handled (playing it as it lies) is most likely never going to change.

[rogolf]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

You'll have to respect that the idea of providing free relief from divot holes is nonsense to many posters/readers here, including me.

The divot one is hard for me. I totally get both sides of the story. I lean toward treating a divot as ground under repair. Why? Because the course changes as the day goes. The afternoon folks simply have more divots to deal with as the rounds before them were played from the same tees, etc.

 

Same thing happens if it rains in the afternoon. Win some, lose some. It's not the same for everyone, nor is it expected to be (other than tees and hole locations).

Maybe the first group out in the day shouldn't get any relief from divot holes since the course hasn't changed for them?

[HatsForBats]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

You'll have to respect that the idea of providing free relief from divot holes is nonsense to many posters/readers here, including me.

 

Actually I don't but I thought I made it clear that I do respect that some disagree when presenting a valid argument? ie. 'such a rule might be hard to define'. If the argument is nonsense in my personal opinion I don't have to respect it. If someone says 'I like the rule now as I think it adds a fun challenge to the game' I may not agree with it but I can respect it.

[sui generis]

And, a ball which hits a tree in the woods and ricochets back into the fairway should be carted back into the woods and dropped in a pile leaves. :swoon:

 

Meh. I have never seen a player take a swing in the woods and a tree suddenly grow where they took the swing. I get the argument of 'such a rule might be hard to define' but these arguments of 'well then a bad shot with a good result should be turned back into a bad result' are nonsense to me.

 

You'll have to respect that the idea of providing free relief from divot holes is nonsense to many posters/readers here, including me.

 

Actually I don't but I thought I made it clear that I do respect that some disagree when presenting a valid argument? ie. 'such a rule might be hard to define'. If the argument is nonsense in my personal opinion I don't have to respect it. If someone says 'I like the rule now as I think it adds a fun challenge to the game' I may not agree with it but I can respect it.

 

There are those who'll happily accept the good bounces but cry foul when an unfavorable bounce occurs. For them, perhaps simulator golf is the answer.

[TheCityGame]

There are two main reasons a divot rule doesn't make sense (but in reality, more than two).

 

For one, defining a divot. Just how "grown in" does the divot have to be in order to not be a divot any more? This is not something that can be "agreed upon by the foursome" (as people like to say) for many reasons, most prominently the differences between foursomes in their standards.

 

For two, it alters -- for lack of a better word -- equity. If I got relief from a divot and was able to drop it (within 20 inches or a club length, doesn't matter), then I would PREFER to be in a divot rather than not in a divot. I would get to pick a flatter spot, maybe change the angle a little, look for patch of grass that was favorably matched with my swing, look for a spot that provides me the best stance. None of these options would be available to the player who doesn't hit into a divot.

 

Number "two" there is what makes a divot rule so insidious. It actually benefits a player to be in a worse spot. Same logic goes for having a "root" rule. Hitting into a bad spot is the rub of the green. Hitting into a good spot should not become the rub of the green.

 

When you keep those two ideas in mind, the only way to logically address the inequity is to allow a player to move a ball anywhere in the fairway.

 

And if you do that, you have undermined the very essence of golf.

[jslane57]

There are two main reasons a divot rule doesn't make sense (but in reality, more than two).

 

For one, defining a divot. Just how "grown in" does the divot have to be in order to not be a divot any more? This is not something that can be "agreed upon by the foursome" (as people like to say) for many reasons, most prominently the differences between foursomes in their standards.

 

For two, it alters -- for lack of a better word -- equity. If I got relief from a divot and was able to drop it (within 20 inches or a club length, doesn't matter), then I would PREFER to be in a divot rather than not in a divot. I would get to pick a flatter spot, maybe change the angle a little, look for patch of grass that was favorably matched with my swing, look for a spot that provides me the best stance. None of these options would be available to the player who doesn't hit into a divot.

 

Number "two" there is what makes a divot rule so insidious. It actually benefits a player to be in a worse spot. Same logic goes for having a "root" rule. Hitting into a bad spot is the rub of the green. Hitting into a good spot should not become the rub of the green.

 

When you keep those two ideas in mind, the only way to logically address the inequity is to allow a player to move a ball anywhere in the fairway.

 

And if you do that, you have undermined the very essence of golf.

Making the fairway a free drop zone would be ok. Call it modified summer rules...

[Shilgy]

There are two main reasons a divot rule doesn't make sense (but in reality, more than two).

 

For one, defining a divot. Just how "grown in" does the divot have to be in order to not be a divot any more? This is not something that can be "agreed upon by the foursome" (as people like to say) for many reasons, most prominently the differences between foursomes in their standards.

 

For two, it alters -- for lack of a better word -- equity. If I got relief from a divot and was able to drop it (within 20 inches or a club length, doesn't matter), then I would PREFER to be in a divot rather than not in a divot. I would get to pick a flatter spot, maybe change the angle a little, look for patch of grass that was favorably matched with my swing, look for a spot that provides me the best stance. None of these options would be available to the player who doesn't hit into a divot.

 

Number "two" there is what makes a divot rule so insidious. It actually benefits a player to be in a worse spot. Same logic goes for having a "root" rule. Hitting into a bad spot is the rub of the green. Hitting into a good spot should not become the rub of the green.

 

When you keep those two ideas in mind, the only way to logically address the inequity is to allow a player to move a ball anywhere in the fairway.

 

And if you do that, you have undermined the very essence of golf.

Making the fairway a free drop zone would be ok. Call it modified summer rules...

As someone posted earlier should we take that suggestion to the extreme and just carry a mat of artificial turf so we always have the "perfect" lie?

[rogolf]

There are two main reasons a divot rule doesn't make sense (but in reality, more than two).

 

For one, defining a divot. Just how "grown in" does the divot have to be in order to not be a divot any more? This is not something that can be "agreed upon by the foursome" (as people like to say) for many reasons, most prominently the differences between foursomes in their standards.

 

For two, it alters -- for lack of a better word -- equity. If I got relief from a divot and was able to drop it (within 20 inches or a club length, doesn't matter), then I would PREFER to be in a divot rather than not in a divot. I would get to pick a flatter spot, maybe change the angle a little, look for patch of grass that was favorably matched with my swing, look for a spot that provides me the best stance. None of these options would be available to the player who doesn't hit into a divot.

 

Number "two" there is what makes a divot rule so insidious. It actually benefits a player to be in a worse spot. Same logic goes for having a "root" rule. Hitting into a bad spot is the rub of the green. Hitting into a good spot should not become the rub of the green.

 

When you keep those two ideas in mind, the only way to logically address the inequity is to allow a player to move a ball anywhere in the fairway.

 

And if you do that, you have undermined the very essence of golf.

Making the fairway a free drop zone would be ok. Call it modified summer rules...

 

Let's eliminate the concept of a "fair"way; there are even tolls on a "free"way.

[smeech8000]

There are two main reasons a divot rule doesn't make sense (but in reality, more than two).

 

For one, defining a divot. Just how "grown in" does the divot have to be in order to not be a divot any more? This is not something that can be "agreed upon by the foursome" (as people like to say) for many reasons, most prominently the differences between foursomes in their standards.

 

For two, it alters -- for lack of a better word -- equity. If I got relief from a divot and was able to drop it (within 20 inches or a club length, doesn't matter), then I would PREFER to be in a divot rather than not in a divot. I would get to pick a flatter spot, maybe change the angle a little, look for patch of grass that was favorably matched with my swing, look for a spot that provides me the best stance. None of these options would be available to the player who doesn't hit into a divot.

 

Number "two" there is what makes a divot rule so insidious. It actually benefits a player to be in a worse spot. Same logic goes for having a "root" rule. Hitting into a bad spot is the rub of the green. Hitting into a good spot should not become the rub of the green.

 

When you keep those two ideas in mind, the only way to logically address the inequity is to allow a player to move a ball anywhere in the fairway.

 

And if you do that, you have undermined the very essence of golf.

Making the fairway a free drop zone would be ok. Call it modified summer rules...

As someone posted earlier should we take that suggestion to the extreme and just carry a mat of artificial turf so we always have the "perfect" lie?

 

Hand to God, I have played with a guy who did exactly this.

 

The fairways at the course in question were horrible because of unseasonably high temps early in the season and the course didn't start watering as early as they should have (really needed to start in March... I think this was 2012).

[HatsForBats]

There are those who'll happily accept the good bounces but cry foul when an unfavorable bounce occurs. For them, perhaps simulator golf is the answer.

 

Not sure what your post adds to the discussion. Just because someone cries foul at every turn doesn't mean they are wrong all the time. It comes down to opinion and as far as the divot in a fairway is concerned I think you will find far more players, who play by the rules, in the 'I wouldn't mind if the rules were changed' for that particular situation camp. Conversely the people that make the rules seem to be far more in the 'it should remain as is' camp. I think there is a disconnect there. Don't take that to mean that I think the majority is always right.

[MountainGoat]

I'm sure in 11 pages this has already been discussed, but I'd still like to see OB handled as a lateral hazard, and I don't understand why it isn't.

[smeech8000]

Conversely the people that make the rules seem to be far more in the 'it should remain as is' camp.

 

Bear in mind that the people that make the rules have adjusted them based on their experience with countless scenarios that involve application of the rule in equity, on a recurring basis. The rules have evolved the way that they have for a good reason.

 

Just because the majority share a "feeling" that a certain way is the fairest doesn't make it so. I will continue to defer to the experts.

[Golf Monkey]

They missed the important rule that should be changed and that is stroke and distance on OB shots. How that slows the game!

Hitting a second ball is a lot quicker. Hitting the ball off the course should be penalised to a greater extent, the present rule is right.

[HatsForBats]

Conversely the people that make the rules seem to be far more in the 'it should remain as is' camp.

 

Bear in mind that the people that make the rules have adjusted them based on their experience with countless scenarios that involve application of the rule in equity, on a recurring basis. The rules have evolved the way that they have for a good reason.

 

Just because the majority share a "feeling" that a certain way is the fairest doesn't make it so. I will continue to defer to the experts.

 

Bear in mind the 'experts' that make the rules may never have seriously considered an adjustment or even been subjected to how their rules affect the majority of players/courses (not just talking about divots with that second part). The 'experts' do not always have the best interest of their playing base in mind when making decisions. How well represented is the average public player/course represented on the committee? I am not talking about a high end public club here.

[rogolf]

Conversely the people that make the rules seem to be far more in the 'it should remain as is' camp.

 

Bear in mind that the people that make the rules have adjusted them based on their experience with countless scenarios that involve application of the rule in equity, on a recurring basis. The rules have evolved the way that they have for a good reason.

 

Just because the majority share a "feeling" that a certain way is the fairest doesn't make it so. I will continue to defer to the experts.

 

Bear in mind the 'experts' that make the rules may never have seriously considered an adjustment or even been subjected to how their rules affect the majority of players/courses (not just talking about divots with that second part). The 'experts' do not always have the best interest of their playing base in mind when making decisions. How well represented is the average public player/course represented on the committee? I am not talking about a high end public club here.

 

I would suggest that you are grossly underestimating the capability of those making the Rules. Not only do they have knowledge of the Rules, but also receive significant input from their allied associations at their respective Rules Committee meetings. For the USGA, this would include state associations. For the R&A it would include national associations from around the world (excluding USA and Mexico). Recognize that all these associations are associations of amateur golfers. The professional tours are also represented.

[dormie1360]

Bear in mind the 'experts' that make the rules may never have seriously considered an adjustment or even been subjected to how their rules affect the majority of players/courses (not just talking about divots with that second part).

 

It's very unfortunate if that perception is out there because nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Newby]

Further, anyone can and do contact either of the RBs to express their opinion. These are collated and considered along with everything else.

 

The ones I know at the R&A are also members at 'ordinary' clubs and get plenty of feedback from fellow members.

Of course the 'modernisation' web sites have setup a feedback facility. I suggest you use it.

[LeoLeo99]

Conversely the people that make the rules seem to be far more in the 'it should remain as is' camp.

 

Bear in mind that the people that make the rules have adjusted them based on their experience with countless scenarios that involve application of the rule in equity, on a recurring basis. The rules have evolved the way that they have for a good reason.

 

Just because the majority share a "feeling" that a certain way is the fairest doesn't make it so. I will continue to defer to the experts.

 

Bear in mind the 'experts' that make the rules may never have seriously considered an adjustment or even been subjected to how their rules affect the majority of players/courses (not just talking about divots with that second part). The 'experts' do not always have the best interest of their playing base in mind when making decisions. How well represented is the average public player/course represented on the committee? I am not talking about a high end public club here.

 

I would suggest that you are grossly underestimating the capability of those making the Rules. Not only do they have knowledge of the Rules, but also receive significant input from their allied associations at their respective Rules Committee meetings. For the USGA, this would include state associations. For the R&A it would include national associations from around the world (excluding USA and Mexico). Recognize that all these associations are associations of amateur golfers. The professional tours are also represented.

 

For the ruling bodies to make significant changes to the rules, means they have to admit the rules were not as optimized as they thought and not as optimized as folks such as yourself have been preaching to us on this very forum. It's a big step for the USGA. They are still reeling from DJ debacle at the US Open and don't underestimate how much credibility they lost with that. They are finally starting to address some of the rules where you can be penalized when you've gained no advantage.

 

The rules don't really talk about fairways and rough so the rules can't readily address a divot in the fairway when it's not even defined in the rules. There's nothing in the rules that says there has to be fairways.

 

I still see older people dropping over the back of their shoulder. I'm all for improvement but these new rule changes are going to cause a lot of confusion as to when the kick as mandatory and when we can start using them. Does it just happen overnight?

[LeoLeo99]

Further, anyone can and do contact either of the RBs to express their opinion. These are collated and considered along with everything else.

 

The ones I know at the R&A are also members at 'ordinary' clubs and get plenty of feedback from fellow members.

Of course the 'modernisation' web sites have setup a feedback facility. I suggest you use it.

 

While not admitting they are members of the ruling bodies, there are plenty of rules aficionados that claim to be referees at tournaments and are intimate with the ruling bodies on this very site that poo-poo any suggestions to improve the rules and generally shout-down and ridicule anyone that proposes changes to the rules. Leads me to believe that talking to the ruling bodies themselves would result in similar attitudes.

[Newby]

I'm sure in 11 pages this has already been discussed, but I'd still like to see OB handled as a lateral hazard, and I don't understand why it isn't.

 

The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf - Richard S Tufts

The Noble Experiment

 

There are four similar situations in golf in which the ball is removed from play. They are: 1) when the ball is lost, 2) when it goes out of bounds, 3) when it is lost or not playable in a water hazard and 4) elsewhere on the course when it is declared unplayable by the player. It is possible that all four and probable that at least three of these situations can often occur in close proximity with one another. Therefore, under the principle that like situations shall be treated alike, it would seem wholly logical to apply the same rule to all four situations. In fact, from the standpoint of equity it is almost impossible to defend any other treatment of these four analogous situations.

 

All four situations provide for a ball to be put into play from where the original ball was last played, adding a penalty of one stroke to the score [Rules 26-1a, 27-1 and 28a]. However, the requirement to use the stroke and distance procedure in all these situations is subject to two exceptions. The first exception is in the case of a ball in a water hazard or lateral water hazard. Under penalty of one stroke, a player may elect to drop back of the hazard, keeping the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard between himself and the hole [Rule 26-1b].6 The second exception is in the case of a ball declared unplayable by the player. There, similar to the water hazard, under penalty of one stroke, the player may drop back of the place from which the ball was lifted [Rule 28c] or within two club-lengths of that place, but not nearer the hole [Rule 28b].

 

These two exceptions, from the standpoint of equity, are controversial. The player being allowed to take relief in this way saves the full length of his stroke to the hazard or the spot where he judges his ball unplayable as compared to the player whose ball is lost or out of bounds who must under stroke and distance return to where he last played. Thus the penalty for taking relief under the Rules from a water hazard or an unplayable lie outside a water hazard is often less severe than the stroke and distance penalty required when a ball is lost or out of Bounds.

 

These exceptions are justified because they occur on the course [Definitions: Course] and quite often very much more in the normal line of play than a ball out of bounds or in conditions that lead to its being lost. Additionally each of these two exceptions have the great merit of requiring that relief be measured from the point to which the ball has been played or where it entered the hazard. Thus the player does not escape from the results of a wildly or badly played stroke. As already discussed in Chapter 10, these exceptions are also justified on the basis that by dropping from the point of an unplayable lie or the point of entry in a water hazard the player is by the expenditure of one penalty stroke making the equivalent of a recovery stroke.

 

Because these situations can occur in close proximity to each other and the penalties can differ, other qualifications and protections also must be present in the Rules. Since it is often difficult to determine whether a ball is lost in or out of a water hazard the Rules protect the use of the potentially less severe water hazard penalty by providing that there must first be reasonable evidence that the ball is lodged in the water hazard in order to treat it as such. The play of a provisional ball is permitted only in connection with a ball that might be lost or out of bounds [Rule 27-2]. Because the play of a provisional ball permits the player to play more than one ball, it in turn creates the risk that he will be able to select the better of two situations. Except under conditions that will not permit the player to have any choice about whether the second ball is played or abandoned the play of a second ball can make golf a game of negotiation. Since a ball can sometimes be played from within a water hazard and the player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is

unplayable a provisional ball may not be played in connection with either of those circumstances. Obviously, it is risky and complicated to tamper with the principle that like situations shall be treated alike.

 

Appealing to that principle there has long been an interest among golfers for similarly less severe penalties for balls lost or out of bounds. Unhappily it is simply not possible to devise any rule which accomplishes the desired results without doing real injury to the game. The difficulties are two-fold; either the balance between the four situations in which a ball is placed out of play is completely destroyed or else the means are provided for a cheap escape from the results of a badly played stroke. The principle that the penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular rule violation must be preserved.

 

Applying the relief procedure discussed above to a lost ball is impossible since no precise point can be fixed from which relief may be taken other than the spot from which the previous stroke was played. And since when a ball lies out of bounds it is in a place from which play is prohibited it would no be proper to allow a player to add a penalty stroke to his score as the equivalent of a recovery shot back onto the course from a place where the Rules do not allow play.

 

Approximately the equivalent of the one stroke penalty without the loss of distance is the penalty of loss of distance only which was experimented with in the early 1960' by the USGA. Here it is assumed that a lost ball or a ball out of bounds is a question of fact, wholly beyond the control of the player, and that since the player is therefore not in a position to create an advantage to himself from the situation, a penalty of the loss of the stroke which he has played is no less than the advantage which he might have derived. As was quickly discovered loss of distance only can sometimes be an advantage and not a penalty. It is, for example, always better to play the next stroke from where the last one was played than to play from where it went, when the shanked ball goes into the woods, the half topped approach over the green into deep rough or the too strong putt across the green into a bunker. With the penalty for a lost ball reduced to distance only, a player can escape the results of a badly played stroke by immediately proceeding as if his ball were lost despite the fact that it might be found easily. A penalty must serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. One of the great features of golf is that one stroke leads to the next and when it becomes easier to recover from adversity by use of the Rule book than a golf club, the game loses its virtue.