USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[LeoLeo99]

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.

 

The perception is there solely due to the USGA's behavior. They operate in a clandestine manner. They should publish every inquiry sent to them along with a reply on their website instead of this secret answer business they engage in.

[Newby]

They should publish every inquiry sent to them along with a reply on their website instead of this secret answer business they engage in.

 

The USGA alone get 000's every week. Probably half or more are repeats of the same questions.

[LeoLeo99]

They should publish every inquiry sent to them along with a reply on their website instead of this secret answer business they engage in.

 

The USGA alone get 000's every week. Probably half or more are repeats of the same questions.

 

They wouldn't get repeats if they published the questions and answers. And they answer them anyway so I'm not following you. And they would save on postage.

[Newby]

So you would be prepared to trawl through hundreds (if not thousands) of Q&As to see if your problem had been answered before?

Of course, most are in the decisions book.

[wadesworld]

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.

 

You would be absolutely incorrect.

 

Think of the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that has occurred on this site regarding how "out-of-touch" the USGA is with the common golfer, and how it's a "bunch of old fogeys," etc. We've been told things like the DJ incident, the Tiger incident, etc, show that the USGA just doesn't care and doesn't listen.

 

Meanwhile, for the past 5 YEARS, they've been working on these changes. Huh. How do you do that when you're so out of touch?

 

The rules of golf don't change overnight. There's lots of thought and care that goes into every change. But this initiative clearly demonstrates the ruling bodies ARE listening.

 

Just because your particular suggestion for changing the rules gets met with opposition doesn't mean that people here aren't willing to listen, or the ruling bodies for that matter. But a suggestion has to have more merit than "the rule should change because I don't like what it does to my score" - which is what the argument of a LOT of golfers boils down to.

[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.

 

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.

 

I don't thinking I am underestimating their capability at all and I am definitely not leveling any accusations. I am just questioning if the average golfer/course is adequately represented which your response does not answer. There are different levels of amateur golfers and courses. On the amateur level does it actually adequately trickle down to the average player/course level or does it trickle down to almost exclusively those that play at the tournament level and at mostly higher end courses? I understand that it has the capability to trickle down to adequately represent the average course/player but is there evidence that it actually does? Just because it can happen does not mean it does.

 

Let's just start with the USGA's committee. Do a large number of them play often at run of the mill public courses? I would think not.

[wadesworld]

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.

 

I don't thinking I am underestimating their capability at all and I am definitely not leveling any accusations. I am just questioning if the average golfer/course is adequately represented which your response does not answer. There are different levels of amateur golfers and courses. On the amateur level does it actually adequately trickle down to the average player/course level or does it trickle down to almost exclusively those that play at the tournament level and at mostly higher end courses? I understand that it has the capability to trickle down to adequately represent the average course/player but is there evidence that it actually does? Just because it can happen does not mean it does.

 

Let's just start with the USGA's committee. Do a large number of them play often at run of the mill public courses? I would think not.

 

An average player at an average course is welcome to get involved in the rules and perhaps one day work their way up onto the committee. It's not some secret society, it's just generally made up of people with years of service to the game of golf. They can't include everyone, so they include those who have shown their dedication and have years of relevant experience.

 

While I'm not sure I currently know anyone on the rules committee, I do know a lady who have served on the US Women's Open's committee, and while they were a member at a private course, I know for a fact they frequently played public courses in the area and also officiated lots of tournaments at public courses around the state, including municipal courses.

[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.

 

You would be absolutely incorrect.

 

Think of the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that has occurred on this site regarding how "out-of-touch" the USGA is with the common golfer, and how it's a "bunch of old fogeys," etc. We've been told things like the DJ incident, the Tiger incident, etc, show that the USGA just doesn't care and doesn't listen.

 

Meanwhile, for the past 5 YEARS, they've been working on these changes. Huh. How do you do that when you're so out of touch?

 

The rules of golf don't change overnight. There's lots of thought and care that goes into every change. But this initiative clearly demonstrates the ruling bodies ARE listening.

 

Just because your particular suggestion for changing the rules gets met with opposition doesn't mean that people here aren't willing to listen, or the ruling bodies for that matter. But a suggestion has to have more merit than "the rule should change because I don't like what it does to my score" - which is what the argument of a LOT of golfers boils down to.

 

A lot of folks on Golfwrx said there is no way DJ should not have been penalized and people have been saying for a long time to change the rule so that if the ball moves on the green without the player hitting the ball, that the player should just move it back without penalty. It took a fiasco to finally get the USGA off their duffs to propose to get that rule revised. Are you going to tell me they've been planning that rule change for 5 years? And it's not just people on golfwrx that think the USGA is out of touch, PGA pros have said it, too. Some touring pros are proponents of bifurcation. So am I.

 

 

 

PS, welcome back. I missed hearing you on the radio regarding the DJ incident by 1 minute.

[Sun Devil]

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.

 

And the afternoon folks play the course with the fairway grass slightly longer making for more cushion under the balls. The argument can go forever.

[dormie1360]

They wouldn't get repeats if they published the questions and answers. And they answer them anyway so I'm not following you. And they would save on postage.

 

Leo, come on. The majority of the questions and answers are already published by the USGA and other's in various places and forms. Golfers not knowing rules isn't because of a "clandestine" organization.

 

Could they make the rule book, terminology, etc., easier to understand? Absolutely. Does it make sense to change some rules. Sure. Isn't that what the USGA is currently doing?

 

I know the current changes have been in discussion since 2012, including ball at rest moved on the green. (e.g. DJ)

 

I am aware of the stereotype the USGA has as a bunch of out of touch stuffed shirts, with many belonging to fancy clubs. That's not he case with my experience. The few committee members that I have spent some time with would look and act like anyone else on the golf course......and the 19th hole. :)

[MMB1500]

Really liking a lot of these proposed changes. Long overdue IMO.

[wadesworld]

A lot of folks on Golfwrx said there is no way DJ should not have been penalized and people have been saying for a long time to change the rule so that if the ball moves on the green without the player hitting the ball, that the player should just move it back without penalty. It took a fiasco to finally get the USGA off their duffs to propose to get that rule revised. Are you going to tell me they've been planning that rule change for 5 years?

 

Yes, I absolutely believe that rule has been part of the discussion from the beginning. There have been too many incidents over the years for me to believe it wasn't one of the ones at the top of the list.

 

What I do believe is there was no plan to introduce a local rule early until the DJ incident.

 

And it's not just people on golfwrx that think the USGA is out of touch, PGA pros have said it, too. Some touring pros are proponents of bifurcation. So am I.

 

 

PGA Tour pros say all sorts of things with which I disagree, so because some of them are critical of the USGA doesn't change my mind. Brittney Lincicome is angry caddies are no longer going to be able to line them up on the LPGA tour. That doesn't make her right or make the proposed rule out of touch because she disagrees.

 

Heck, I'm critical of some aspects of the USGA, but that doesn't make me believe they're a bunch of out-of-touch old fogeys.

 

Most people's opinions of the USGA are formed by high-profile incidents and a desire for results that just can't happen. It goes like this:

 

A ball moves? Aw, heck no advantage gained, just put it back.....wait....what???? You mean to tell me the USGA penalized him for that? What a bunch of out-of-touch old codgers. They're purposely trying to ruin the game! They should change that rule tomorrow! Absolutely, freaking ridiculous!

 

Sound familiar? The rant makes sense. Almost everybody would have no problem with the player just putting the ball back. But the USGA can't legislate on what seems to make sense. It has to rule on how the rule is written today, not how they think it should be written. Even if they agree with the change, it takes multiple years to get a change in place, as you're now seeing.

[rogolf]

A lot of folks on Golfwrx said there is no way DJ should not have been penalized and people have been saying for a long time to change the rule so that if the ball moves on the green without the player hitting the ball, that the player should just move it back without penalty. It took a fiasco to finally get the USGA off their duffs to propose to get that rule revised. Are you going to tell me they've been planning that rule change for 5 years?

 

Yes, I absolutely believe that rule has been part of the discussion from the beginning. There have been too many incidents over the years for me to believe it wasn't one of the ones at the top of the list.

 

What I do believe is there was no plan to introduce a local rule early until the DJ incident.

 

And it's not just people on golfwrx that think the USGA is out of touch, PGA pros have said it, too. Some touring pros are proponents of bifurcation. So am I.

 

 

PGA Tour pros say all sorts of things with which I disagree, so because some of them are critical of the USGA doesn't change my mind. Brittney Lincicome is angry caddies are no longer going to be able to line them up on the LPGA tour. That doesn't make her right or make the proposed rule out of touch because she disagrees.

 

Heck, I'm critical of some aspects of the USGA, but that doesn't make me believe they're a bunch of out-of-touch old fogeys.

 

Most people's opinions of the USGA are formed by high-profile incidents and a desire for results that just can't happen. It goes like this:

 

A ball moves? Aw, heck no advantage gained, just put it back.....wait....what???? You mean to tell me the USGA penalized him for that? What a bunch of out-of-touch old codgers. They're purposely trying to ruin the game! They should change that rule tomorrow! Absolutely, freaking ridiculous!

 

Sound familiar? The rant makes sense. Almost everybody would have no problem with the player just putting the ball back. But the USGA can't legislate on what seems to make sense. It has to rule on how the rule is written today, not how they think it should be written. Even if they agree with the change, it takes multiple years to get a change in place, as you're now seeing.

 

They are obligated to go with what was their best effort at the Rules before the current situation occurred. Even the ruling bodies are not permitted to just change the Rules or ruling based on the most recent experience. However, they will react as soon as what they consider possible, hence the authority to implement a local Rule as of January 1, 2017 - based on their experience at the 2016 US Open.

"Perfection" (whatever that may be) is not often accomplished on the first, second, third, fourth etc try.

[jjj912]

I agree with most of the proposed changes. I'm ambivalent about a few of the them. I disagree with the proposed max score rule.

 

I'm glad there was recognition that some of the rules were outdated and needed to be changed and that some of the rules were unnecessarily complex. I noted some of the proposed rules were a case where common practice had diverged from the rule and the rule change is to match the rule to the practice (instead of the typically preferred method of change the practice to match the rule).

 

My opinion is that most of the proposed changes whose rationale is only partly based on improving pace of play will not improve pace of plat in any measurable. There is nothing inherent in the Rules that makes golf slow. It is all about the mentality of the golfers. There were a couple of proposed changes that are directly designed to improve the golfer's mentality about pace of play. Those may help, but it will require active education of the "masses" about the rules changes since almost nobody actually reads the rules (whether it be of Golf or of anything else).

 

I disagree with the proposed maximum score rule. If the maximum score is set low, such as double bogey, then the golfer that finishes the hole is exactly 6 strokes gets exactly the same score as the golfer that was sitting on 6 strokes and still nowhere near the green. That is unfair to me. I know the proposed rule states that the committee can set the limit and gives reasons such as 2x par. However, the same unfairness exists no matter what the maximum limit. Granted, if it is really high (e.g., 4 times par) then the likelihood that it comes into play is nearly non-existent, but then that effectively neuters the rule. One of the reasons for the proposed rule which is to speed up play. I think messing around with scoring to increase speed is misguided, at best, and will have no measurable impact to pace of play improvement. I've found that people realize when they can't finish a hole and so pick up. Beginners have to be educated that picking up is OK (they don't read the rules either). For need of a maximum score to facilitate the conduct of tournaments, whether formal or informal, I suggest that the maximum score be two plus the highest gross score recorded for the hole among all competitors in the tournament. For players not playing in a tournament, a maximum score is not needed. For players maintaining handicaps, the handicap system already accommodates the issue (Please recognize that the philosophy behind maximum score for handicaps is a different philosophy that for the Rules of Golf).

[Augster]

You are correct in your assessment, but we all know that if you pick up on a hole in stroke play, you are DQ and didn't play "a real round of golf".

 

What a recognized form of play with a max score does is it caters to the groups that want to pick up, but also want to shoot a "real score" and don't want to play stableford.

 

So the group decides on the first tee they are going to play medal play with a max score of triple bogey. During a round, a few guys pick up and take the max. A few guys don't and play their ball down and out the entire round.

 

All players would have shot a "legitimate" score that day. I can't emphasize enough how important that is to some people. Even guys that don't keep handicaps. If being on this forum has taught me anything, it's that people want to shoot "real scores". And they get pissed when they come on here and say "I was playing medal play, and shot my career best. But I did have to pick up on a hole. What score do it post for that hole?" Then you tell them they are actually DQ, and didn't shoot their career best. Then others jump in and say you can't be DQ from a casual round etc. etc. etc. And the guy isn't even posting the score for handicap.

 

Now with this new authorized form of play, the group can say "max triple" at the start, and everyone plays to that. Then you CAN shoot a career best, real score, acknowledging that you were playing "triple max". Just like if your best score in stableford is 41 points, but you picked up once on a bad hole, it'll still be your legitimate best stableford score, but likely won't be your best medal score due to not finishing the hole.

 

It's just another form of play. People want to shoot legitimate scores and stableford just isn't played in casual groups in the US. It's all basically medal play and if you pick up and don't finish a hole, you're not playing "the game of golf" and can't shoot a real score.

 

Now you can.

 

People by and large want to shoot "real" scores. The USGA, by allowing a committee, even an ad hoc committee of 2 or more casual players on the first tee, to play medal play but with a max score governor, they've given legitimacy to most of the casual rounds played in the US.

 

[LeoLeo99]

You are correct in your assessment, but we all know that if you pick up on a hole in stroke play, you are DQ and didn't play "a real round of golf".

 

What a recognized form of play with a max score does is it caters to the groups that want to pick up, but also want to shoot a "real score" and don't want to play stableford.

 

So the group decides on the first tee they are going to play medal play with a max score of triple bogey. During a round, a few guys pick up and take the max. A few guys don't and play their ball down and out the entire round.

 

All players would have shot a "legitimate" score that day. I can't emphasize enough how important that is to some people. Even guys that don't keep handicaps. If being on this forum has taught me anything, it's that people want to shoot "real scores". And they get pissed when they come on here and say "I was playing medal play, and shot my career best. But I did have to pick up on a hole. What score do it post for that hole?" Then you tell them they are actually DQ, and didn't shoot their career best. Then others jump in and say you can't be DQ from a casual round etc. etc. etc. And the guy isn't even posting the score for handicap.

 

Now with this new authorized form of play, the group can say "max triple" at the start, and everyone plays to that. Then you CAN shoot a career best, real score, acknowledging that you were playing "triple max". Just like if your best score in stableford is 41 points, but you picked up once on a bad hole, it'll still be your legitimate best stableford score, but likely won't be your best medal score due to not finishing the hole.

 

It's just another form of play. People want to shoot legitimate scores and stableford just isn't played in casual groups in the US. It's all basically medal play and if you pick up and don't finish a hole, you're not playing "the game of golf" and can't shoot a real score.

 

Now you can.

 

People by and large want to shoot "real" scores. The USGA, by allowing a committee, even an ad hoc committee of 2 or more casual players on the first tee, to play medal play but with a max score governor, they've given legitimacy to most of the casual rounds played in the US.

 

I hadn't read all that into the rules change but if that's the interpretation, it's a good thing.

[Augster]

You are correct in your assessment, but we all know that if you pick up on a hole in stroke play, you are DQ and didn't play "a real round of golf".

 

What a recognized form of play with a max score does is it caters to the groups that want to pick up, but also want to shoot a "real score" and don't want to play stableford.

 

So the group decides on the first tee they are going to play medal play with a max score of triple bogey. During a round, a few guys pick up and take the max. A few guys don't and play their ball down and out the entire round.

 

All players would have shot a "legitimate" score that day. I can't emphasize enough how important that is to some people. Even guys that don't keep handicaps. If being on this forum has taught me anything, it's that people want to shoot "real scores". And they get pissed when they come on here and say "I was playing medal play, and shot my career best. But I did have to pick up on a hole. What score do it post for that hole?" Then you tell them they are actually DQ, and didn't shoot their career best. Then others jump in and say you can't be DQ from a casual round etc. etc. etc. And the guy isn't even posting the score for handicap.

 

Now with this new authorized form of play, the group can say "max triple" at the start, and everyone plays to that. Then you CAN shoot a career best, real score, acknowledging that you were playing "triple max". Just like if your best score in stableford is 41 points, but you picked up once on a bad hole, it'll still be your legitimate best stableford score, but likely won't be your best medal score due to not finishing the hole.

 

It's just another form of play. People want to shoot legitimate scores and stableford just isn't played in casual groups in the US. It's all basically medal play and if you pick up and don't finish a hole, you're not playing "the game of golf" and can't shoot a real score.

 

Now you can.

 

People by and large want to shoot "real" scores. The USGA, by allowing a committee, even an ad hoc committee of 2 or more casual players on the first tee, to play medal play but with a max score governor, they've given legitimacy to most of the casual rounds played in the US.

 

I hadn't read all that into the rules change but if that's the interpretation, it's a good thing.

Leo, you've been around this rules folder long enough. I'm sure you've seen plenty of threads where a casual player makes a thread asking about some part of his round he may have played wrong and ends up with the only option for a legit score that day, playing strictly by the rules, is to take the DQ. But because it is just a casual round and there isn't a committee to assess a DQ, the correct way to play it is WD. And then the back and forth starts. It happens too often.

 

But now, with other forms of sanctioned medal play, those rounds where a player picks up, or they'd be DQ for a wrong procedure etc. just become "max score" and they play on. And at the end of the round, have a legitimate score for that form of play. If they're playing for handicap, they'd be posting either way.

 

When I was worse than I am now, just starting out, we'd always play "triple max" while playing stroke play. It keeps the bets closer. When a guy takes a 13 on a hole, not only does it take forever, he's also likely to lose that side and the overall. He basically has to cheer for other guys to tank it badly also to get back in the competition. With triple max, the games stay closer.

 

But we recognized they weren't "legit" scores. They were perfectly acceptable to post for cap, but when you shot an "85" but quit on the par 3 6th hole instead of teeing up your 7th shot after going OB thrice, the score couldn't be your medal score that day. Didn't bother us.

 

But after joining WRX and reading some reactions when you tell another guy their score that day wasn't legit, they get really PO'd.

 

But now with these new "sanctioned" forms of play, you can have your career best medal score, your best "double max" score, your best "triple max" score etc. and they will all be legitimate scores.

 

I take the most big numbers in the groups I play with. I'll be pushing to play "double max" or "triple max" every day. Taking a 9 or 10 on a hole takes me out of low net every time when I play against 3-4 and 5 caps that never ever take a penalty stroke.

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Thanks for providing this. I'm sure it makes sense to someone smarter than I am. My only retort is to suggest that this kind of logic, while virtuous, has led us to the overly complicated rules situation we have today. The rules may be internally consistent, but they are too complicated to routinely execute.

 

For example, in my 53 years of golf, I can't recall a single situation where someone, upon learning that his ball was out of bounds, went back and played another ball from the previous spot. The simple reason is that if he did so, he would be summarily executed by the foursome waiting behind us. Furthermore, the delay would back up the whole course. In each and every case, the offender has simply dropped another ball within two club lengths of where he deemed his ball to have last crossed the out-of-bound line, took a stroke penalty, and played on. In other words, he played it like a lateral hazard. The golfer is suitably penalized, play continues and life goes on.

[North Butte]

As I see it the new max-score formats would have two advantages over Stableford. Mainly, it can be played by people without handicaps.

 

The other advantage is ego service for bad golfers. They can pick up a couple of times and say, "I shot 98" and have a real stroke play number just like the big boys. American golfers absolutely MUST have a score like that or they feel like they didn't really play.

 

I don't know why Stableford is so resisted over here. UK club golfers are perfectly happy saying "31 points" when you ask them how their day went. Their USA won't accept that, they need a format that lets them say "I shot 87" even when they were actually in their pocket a couple times.

[Vindog]

Some I like

Some I don't

 

As a whole, it seems like a brainstorming list, where many may be cut out. I'll note again, along with others, that lost ball, OOB and fairway divot relief are nowhere to be found. All of which I am okay with.

 

 

But now, with other forms of sanctioned medal play, those rounds where a player picks up, or they'd be DQ for a wrong procedure etc. just become "max score" and they play on. And at the end of the round, have a legitimate score for that form of play. If they're playing for handicap, they'd be posting either way.

 

 

This is the impression I get. The idea that the provision for handicap round max scores are extrapolated into regular (casual) rounds.

[Newby]

I wonder where the word macho first gained its current popularity.

[Sean2]

If I read it correctly, a golf course has the option of making everything lateral. I think this would be a real boon to the average golfer as stroke and distance is too penal, and it might speed up play a bit.

[LeoLeo99]

If I read it correctly, a golf course has the option of making everything lateral. I think this would be a real boon to the average golfer as stroke and distance is too penal, and it might speed up play a bit.

 

I didn't read it that way. I read it as usga wants to see more red stakes instead of yellow. White stakes are still staying white.

[towncryer]

Sorry if it's been mentioned a thousand times...but after reading the proposal to allow players to repair spike marks on the green, I was really hoping to see relief from divots in the fairway. Oh well.

[towncryer]

If I read it correctly, a golf course has the option of making everything lateral. I think this would be a real boon to the average golfer as stroke and distance is too penal, and it might speed up play a bit.

 

I didn't read it that way. I read it as usga wants to see more red stakes instead of yellow. White stakes are still staying white.

 

I think the post was referencing stroke and distance on golf balls being lost in wooded areas or native grass that isn't mowed, or other non water hazard situations where people lose balls and usually end up just dropping anyway.

 

But while we're on the subject...I see stroke and distance for OB as one of the worst rules on the books. If you're playing a course on a coast and rip one into the water and off the golf course, you get to drop where it crossed the margin. If you hit the exact same shot on a course that has OB along one hole instead of a lake or ocean, you're hitting three from the tee. Ridiculous, IMO.

[Vindog]

If I read it correctly, a golf course has the option of making everything lateral. I think this would be a real boon to the average golfer as stroke and distance is too penal, and it might speed up play a bit.

 

I didn't read it that way. I read it as usga wants to see more red stakes instead of yellow. White stakes are still staying white.

 

I think the post was referencing stroke and distance on golf balls being lost in wooded areas or native grass that isn't mowed, or other non water hazard situations where people lose balls and usually end up just dropping anyway.

 

But while we're on the subject...I see stroke and distance for OB as one of the worst rules on the books. If you're playing a course on a coast and rip one into the water and off the golf course, you get to drop where it crossed the margin. If you hit the exact same shot on a course that has OB along one hole instead of a lake or ocean, you're hitting three from the tee. Ridiculous, IMO.

 

Great point. The boundary marked by the coastline should be OB.

[LeoLeo99]

I wonder where the word macho first gained its current popularity.

 

[wadesworld]

 

 

For example, in my 53 years of golf, I can't recall a single situation where someone, upon learning that his ball was out of bounds, went back and played another ball from the previous spot. The simple reason is that if he did so, he would be summarily executed by the foursome waiting behind us. Furthermore, the delay would back up the whole course. In each and every case, the offender has simply dropped another ball within two club lengths of where he deemed his ball to have last crossed the out-of-bound line, took a stroke penalty, and played on. In other words, he played it like a lateral hazard. The golfer is suitably penalized, play continues and life goes on.

 

i've seen it before, and done it before, in tournaments.

 

Under the current rules, in the scenario you describe, the golfer is not "suitably penalized." They're gaining an advantage by ignoring the distance part of the equation and only charging themselves a single stroke. Under the current rules, if a golfer wants to "drop one" if a ball is lost or OB, they should really charge themselves two penalty strokes. However, as you point out, most golfers don't do that because....well...because they don't like what that does to their score.

[wadesworld]

If I read it correctly, a golf course has the option of making everything lateral. I think this would be a real boon to the average golfer as stroke and distance is too penal, and it might speed up play a bit.

 

I didn't read it that way. I read it as usga wants to see more red stakes instead of yellow. White stakes are still staying white.

 

Not true. I specifically heard them say that it will be up to the course operators.

 

That doesn't mean the procedure or penalty with white stakes changes. It just means course operators have more flexibility. If today the entire left side of a hole is marked OB, the course operator might decide to change that portion which does not contain houses to be a red-staked "penalty area" while leaving white stakes by the houses.

[nsxguy]

Here's a question. . .does this mean there's no penalty for a double hit?

 

Is there a "penalty" for a double hit now ?