USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[jslane57]

Golf (and its rules) distills down to this, for me: "play the ball as it lies, and if you can't do that, do what's fair". The rub, of course, if to figure out what is fair.

 

I think for many, that distillation would be more like: "play the ball as you'd like it to lie, and if you can't do that, do what's fast".

 

I think this hits on a key difference - are you playing golf, or are you competing at golf? As long as we all compete, and abide, by the same rules, the changes being discussed really only impact people at the fringes, maybe, in a competition setting. If you are playing golf as has been played (mostly) over 400 years, then yes, losing a ball off the property should be S&D.

 

I don't know that there is a satisfactory compromise between these two for OB/Lost Ball.

I agree. As well as the difference between stroke and match play. With the movement to stroke play over the years, rules truly have to be interpreted perfectly throughout the event by all the people. In match play rules can never be abandoned, but if you lose a hole, the hole is lost and golf starts again on the next hole. People get up in arms about the rules due to establishing a handicap and such, but really, a handicap is not a perfect thing either, it is solely an approximation of how one plays...

[Augster]

I get what you guys are saying about the "historical" nature, but to me that doesn't matter at all. Besides, if it somehow tarnishes the game for you that much, feel free to play the "old way?" It would be just like taking the option to on a hazard to hit from as close to the original position.

 

To me its just "we used to play golf with these rules, now we play them with these rules. It can make the game quicker, more enjoyable for some, especially new people, and might lower your scores occasionally, depending on the course." None of the current rules of golf are sacrosanct to me.

 

 

You guys were probably against the forward pass in football and the three-point line in basketball, weren't you :)

 

Edit - to me the bigger concern is property/people damage at certain courses, not golf itself.

 

That's the thing. If they made it into the Rule, we couldn't play it the "old way" because we'd be sandbagging. If you take stroke and distance when you are allowed a drop further up, with a 1-stroke penalty like a penalty area, you are no longer trying to shoot your best score.

 

This is the main reason the USGA proposal says a 2-stroke penalty. That way you'd legally have the right to go back and rehit, or drop at the PLC or however they would end up wording it.

 

For those of us that play strictly by the rules, it does matter. And in the proposal above, making it a 3-stroke penalty, it wouldn't save any time as anyone trying to shoot their best score would have to go back and rehit. They'd never take the 3-stroke penalty.

[Roadking2003]

People don't hit provisional balls because they have huge ego problems. I probably hit 6 or 7 provisionals per round when I'm swinging horribly.

 

Wow! That's not fun. I suggest you find a different course. I might hit one provisional in ten rounds. And it has nothing to do with ego.

[Roadking2003]

If there's ever any allowance in a drop from OB, really the only thing that makes sense is a drop with a 3 stroke penalty.

 

1 in, 3 on the drop, you're laying 4, hitting 5.

 

You don't get to drop in bounds with the same stroke count as your provisional would be because you've removed the possibility of hitting more balls OB. And 1 stroke is just nonsense, for many reasons, but you don't need any reasons beyond the posted Tufts article from earlier.

 

A real golfer would say it should be a five-stroke penalty. :taunt:

[finleysg]

Golf (and its rules) distills down to this, for me: "play the ball as it lies, and if you can't do that, do what's fair". The rub, of course, if to figure out what is fair.

 

I think for many, that distillation would be more like: "play the ball as you'd like it to lie, and if you can't do that, do what's fast".

 

I think this hits on a key difference - are you playing golf, or are you competing at golf? As long as we all compete, and abide, by the same rules, the changes being discussed really only impact people at the fringes, maybe, in a competition setting. If you are playing golf as has been played (mostly) over 400 years, then yes, losing a ball off the property should be S&D.

 

I don't know that there is a satisfactory compromise between these two for OB/Lost Ball.

 

I don't know that I understand your point. Having difficulty parsing, I guess. Bottom line for me is that there is no real distinction. I'm always competing with friends (for cash) or in tournaments. Otherwise, on those rare occasions when I'm playing with strangers or alone, I don't bother keeping score, and in those cases, I'll drop a ball or scrape a putt. Just doesn't matter.

[Shilgy]

I get what you guys are saying about the "historical" nature, but to me that doesn't matter at all. Besides, if it somehow tarnishes the game for you that much, feel free to play the "old way?" It would be just like taking the option to on a hazard to hit from as close to the original position.

 

To me its just "we used to play golf with these rules, now we play them with these rules. It can make the game quicker, more enjoyable for some, especially new people, and might lower your scores occasionally, depending on the course." None of the current rules of golf are sacrosanct to me.

 

 

You guys were probably against the forward pass in football and the three-point line in basketball, weren't you :)

 

Edit - to me the bigger concern is property/people damage at certain courses, not golf itself.

 

That's the thing. If they made it into the Rule, we couldn't play it the "old way" because we'd be sandbagging. If you take stroke and distance when you are allowed a drop further up, with a 1-stroke penalty like a penalty area, you are no longer trying to shoot your best score.

 

This is the main reason the USGA proposal says a 2-stroke penalty. That way you'd legally have the right to go back and rehit, or drop at the PLC or however they would end up wording it.

 

For those of us that play strictly by the rules, it does matter. And in the proposal above, making it a 3-stroke penalty, it wouldn't save any time as anyone trying to shoot their best score would have to go back and rehit. They'd never take the 3-stroke penalty.

How is it a 3 stroke penalty? Dropping where it last crossed the ob with a two stroke penalty is the equivalent of today's stroke and distance and "almost" hitting it ob again at the same spot. It's not a 3 stroke penalty at all. The only reason to go back and rehit would be if you had no shot if you dropped.

[Augster]

I get what you guys are saying about the "historical" nature, but to me that doesn't matter at all. Besides, if it somehow tarnishes the game for you that much, feel free to play the "old way?" It would be just like taking the option to on a hazard to hit from as close to the original position.

 

To me its just "we used to play golf with these rules, now we play them with these rules. It can make the game quicker, more enjoyable for some, especially new people, and might lower your scores occasionally, depending on the course." None of the current rules of golf are sacrosanct to me.

 

 

You guys were probably against the forward pass in football and the three-point line in basketball, weren't you :)

 

Edit - to me the bigger concern is property/people damage at certain courses, not golf itself.

 

That's the thing. If they made it into the Rule, we couldn't play it the "old way" because we'd be sandbagging. If you take stroke and distance when you are allowed a drop further up, with a 1-stroke penalty like a penalty area, you are no longer trying to shoot your best score.

 

This is the main reason the USGA proposal says a 2-stroke penalty. That way you'd legally have the right to go back and rehit, or drop at the PLC or however they would end up wording it.

 

For those of us that play strictly by the rules, it does matter. And in the proposal above, making it a 3-stroke penalty, it wouldn't save any time as anyone trying to shoot their best score would have to go back and rehit. They'd never take the 3-stroke penalty.

How is it a 3 stroke penalty? Dropping where it last crossed the ob with a two stroke penalty is the equivalent of today's stroke and distance and "almost" hitting it ob again at the same spot. It's not a 3 stroke penalty at all. The only reason to go back and rehit would be if you had no shot if you dropped.

 

TheCityGame suggested making it a 3-stroke penalty to drop, whereas the USGA is suggesting 2-strokes. If the USGA adopted 3-stroke, it wouldn't help pace at all as nobody would take it if you can go back to the tee and hit your 3rd instead of your 5th next to the OB line.

 

Not my suggestion.

[Shilgy]

I get what you guys are saying about the "historical" nature, but to me that doesn't matter at all. Besides, if it somehow tarnishes the game for you that much, feel free to play the "old way?" It would be just like taking the option to on a hazard to hit from as close to the original position.

 

To me its just "we used to play golf with these rules, now we play them with these rules. It can make the game quicker, more enjoyable for some, especially new people, and might lower your scores occasionally, depending on the course." None of the current rules of golf are sacrosanct to me.

 

 

You guys were probably against the forward pass in football and the three-point line in basketball, weren't you :)

 

Edit - to me the bigger concern is property/people damage at certain courses, not golf itself.

 

That's the thing. If they made it into the Rule, we couldn't play it the "old way" because we'd be sandbagging. If you take stroke and distance when you are allowed a drop further up, with a 1-stroke penalty like a penalty area, you are no longer trying to shoot your best score.

 

This is the main reason the USGA proposal says a 2-stroke penalty. That way you'd legally have the right to go back and rehit, or drop at the PLC or however they would end up wording it.

 

For those of us that play strictly by the rules, it does matter. And in the proposal above, making it a 3-stroke penalty, it wouldn't save any time as anyone trying to shoot their best score would have to go back and rehit. They'd never take the 3-stroke penalty.

How is it a 3 stroke penalty? Dropping where it last crossed the ob with a two stroke penalty is the equivalent of today's stroke and distance and "almost" hitting it ob again at the same spot. It's not a 3 stroke penalty at all. The only reason to go back and rehit would be if you had no shot if you dropped.

 

TheCityGame suggested making it a 3-stroke penalty to drop, whereas the USGA is suggesting 2-strokes. If the USGA adopted 3-stroke, it wouldn't help pace at all as nobody would take it if you can go back to the tee and hit your 3rd instead of your 5th next to the OB line.

 

Not my suggestion.

Got ya, I misunderstood and thought you had missed the point of calling it a two stroke penalty. My error.

[Deceptively Short]

I personally would hate to see a change in the OB rule and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is really not an issue or even a discussion point in the UK. However if it were introduced with either a 1 or 2 shot penalty, thinking about it, in most courses down here in the South West of the England, most people would elect to rehit anyway. This is because close or 80" or 2 metres away from most OB lines is in really deep cabbage, trees, horrible ground or scrub with little or no shot possible - it would more often than not lead to a series of hacks out backwards or sideways, much time spent trying to play the shot or shots and racking up a really big score. Off the top of my head I can't recall what the conditions were like at most of the US courses I've played about 80" or 2 metres from OB lines but maybe they are all perfect with good angles into greens with clear paths but I doubt it. Equally my concern is where people would choose to drop as on courses with red stakes bordering fairways many people look to drop perpendicular to where the ball ends up and not at point of entry - until advised otherwise. When a ball is carved or snapped off the property high over trees way out of sight determining a fair dropping point would be very 'open to interpretation'. For all these reasons it would be a backward step and not a time saver - maybe getting those who advocate it to hit a few more provisionals and not keep walking back would be a better use of time and effort.

[North Butte]

I personally would hate to see a change in the OB rule and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is really not an issue or even a discussion point in the UK. However if it were introduced with either a 1 or 2 shot penalty, thinking about it, in most courses down here in the South West of the England, most people would elect to rehit anyway. This is because close or 80" or 2 metres away from most OB lines is in really deep cabbage, trees, horrible ground or scrub with little or no shot possible - it would more often than not lead to a series of hacks out backwards or sideways, much time spent trying to play the shot or shots and racking up a really big score. Off the top of my head I can't recall what the conditions were like at most of the US courses I've played about 80" or 2 metres from OB lines but maybe they are all perfect with good angles into greens with clear paths but I doubt it. Equally my concern is where people would choose to drop as on courses with red stakes bordering fairways many people look to drop perpendicular to where the ball ends up and not at point of entry - until advised otherwise. When a ball is carved or snapped off the property high over trees way out of sight determining a fair dropping point would be very 'open to interpretation'. For all these reasons it would be a backward step and not a time saver - maybe getting those who advocate it to hit a few more provisionals and not keep walking back would be a better use of time and effort.

 

Yes the typical USA groups who play OB as though it was lateral also play laterals (and therefore OB) by dropping a ball roughly perpendicular to the hazard line AND out in the first cut of rough where they have a view of the green. Same for lost ball, they pick a spot in the short range rough that's an optimistic estimate of their "normal" length and play from there. And in my experience they mostly assess themselves one stroke for this.

 

I remember playing a few rounds at a public course near me with one of the regular dogfight groups there. The way they play there was virtually no penalty for hitting a ball miles into the woods or swamp. The player would just march way, way forward and drop a ball in a good lie just off the fairway and add one stroke. So he'd be hitting three from a perfect life within wedge short iron distance of the green.

 

It only took a couple times where my ball landed in the fairway, trickled into a horrible lie in the rough and I had to hack it out and hit three from the fairway from further out than the guy who lost his ball to realize these guys were nuts. That along with rolling the ball in the fairway and rolling it in bunkers made it a game that only vaguely resembled golf.

 

PS Oh and I left out my favorite part. They would go ahead and putt their short putts rather than picking them up. But anytime someone missed one inside of 2 1/2 or 3 feet the other guys would say that was good don't worry about it. It's like the worst of both worlds. Waste all that time lining up and stroking putts that you're not going to count if you miss!

[nsxguy]

Having reviewed the various options, our conclusion to date is that the identified possible alternatives to stroke and distance relief are not workable and/or not consistent with the principles of the game. Our reasoning can be summarized as follows:

 

There remains a significant concern that removing the requirement for the stroke to be replayed when a ball is lost or out of bounds conflicts with the fundamental challenge of playing the ball in a progression from the tee to the green.

 

And yet they have no problem with the water hazard rule which violates this principle. Why not require a ball lost in a hazard to be replayed just like OOB?

 

Perhaps because their principle is the lateral hazard is ON the golf course and OB is,,,,,,, well,,,,,, NOT ???

[jmkenn0]

^ There are some pretty famous examples of laterals not on the course.

 

So what about this one? Eventually technology will allow us to identify the location of any ball - for the sake of argument lets keep it to lost balls on the course. So now instead of traipsing around for 5 (or 3) minutes looking for a ball, and possibly having to go back and play a provisional, I will more than likely never have a case of a lost ball (on-course) again.... Would you want to the USGA to allow this technology? Depending on course, a lost ball is much more likely than an OB ball.

[Sawgrass]

^ There are some pretty famous examples of laterals not on the course.

 

So what about this one? Eventually technology will allow us to identify the location of any ball - for the sake of argument lets keep it to lost balls on the course. So now instead of traipsing around for 5 (or 3) minutes looking for a ball, and possibly having to go back and play a provisional, I will more than likely never have a case of a lost ball (on-course) again.... Would you want to the USGA to allow this technology? Depending on course, a lost ball is much more likely than an OB ball.

 

After authorizing a technology to locate your ball they can authorize a drone ball -- one which you can redirect via your smartphone to gently land on the green within gimme distance.

 

Won't golf be fun.

[North Butte]

I don't think we're anywhere near having that sort of technology be practical for actual day-to-day use in golf. Maybe in 20-30 years but it's not right around the corner by any means.

 

That said, I play at a course where we keep the rough down to an inch or two and the underbrush is cleared from most areas under the trees lining the fairways. Think a low-budget version of Augusta National. So we just don't spend all that much time looking for lost balls, a typical foursome I play in might take a couple minutes to locate a ball three or four times a round.

 

But if I played regularly at one of these rough-and-bushes-and-tree-infested places where every foursome is stopping once or twice on most holes to circle around for a full 5 minutes hoping to find stray balls? Then heck yeah I'd use a ball-finder if it existed. Whether allowed by the Rules or not. It might make those courses actually worth playing, which they are not in my opinion in the real world.

[jmkenn0]

You could probably do it now with Trackman and drones - it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus with wireless charging, Bluetooth, RFID - I'd say within 5 years someone has a decent prototype. Maybe a Uranium core? It would glow and be easy to find!

 

But I guess looking for balls is part of the charm?

[North Butte]

But I guess looking for balls is part of the charm?

 

I do not see any charm in circling around kicking at the long grass hoping to stumble on a ball.

 

As far as I'm concerned the USGA could change the limit, not to 3 minutes but the 30 seconds. If I get to where my ball is supposed to be and can't see it while standing there I lose interest.

[Deceptively Short]

Another point about this 'time saving concept' is where did all this having to go back to the tee all the time come from? If you have obviously carved it out of bounds then just play another - should be no more than 40 seconds at the most shouldn't it? If there is any doubt it is out of bounds play a provisional - should be no more than 40 seconds shouldn't it? Even if you have to play 3 balls off the tee then it should be less than 80 seconds extra. So all this 15 minutes stuff is either nonsense or people who do not understand how the game should be played under the correct rules or maybe have never done so. It would be ridiculous to make a fundamental change to the rules and scoring of golf for those that seem not to be able to understand it in the first place.

[Newby]

^ There are some pretty famous examples of laterals not on the course.

 

So what about this one? Eventually technology will allow us to identify the location of any ball - for the sake of argument lets keep it to lost balls on the course. So now instead of traipsing around for 5 (or 3) minutes looking for a ball, and possibly having to go back and play a provisional, I will more than likely never have a case of a lost ball (on-course) again.... Would you want to the USGA to allow this technology? Depending on course, a lost ball is much more likely than an OB ball.

 

http://www.novacaddy.com/Nova-Dark-Tracker-Light-up-Golf-Ball-White-3-pack-p/1002110001.htm

[Sawgrass]

You could probably do it now with Trackman and drones - it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus with wireless charging, Bluetooth, RFID - I'd say within 5 years someone has a decent prototype. Maybe a Uranium core? It would glow and be easy to find!

 

But I guess looking for balls is part of the charm?

 

No, looking for balls is part of the challenge, not part of the "charm."

 

It's hard to control a golf ball, it's satisfying when you do.

 

I'm sorry, all this talk reminds me of when they fill the gutters with bumpers so kids don't get too frustrated while bowling.

[Sawgrass]

You could probably do it now with Trackman and drones - it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus with wireless charging, Bluetooth, RFID - I'd say within 5 years someone has a decent prototype. Maybe a Uranium core? It would glow and be easy to find!

 

But I guess looking for balls is part of the charm?

 

Apparently there is already (illegal) technology available:

 

14-3/14

 

Electronic Instrument Used to Find Ball

 

Q.A radio-frequency identification chip has been embedded in a golf ball. When used with a special radio receiver, a player may find such a ball readily because the receiver emits a signal that grows louder as the person holding the receiver moves closer to the ball. Is the use of such a ball and receiver permissible?

 

A.No. Use of such a ball in conjunction with the receiver is a breach of Rule 14-3.

 

However, use of such a ball without the receiver is permissible, provided the ball conforms to the Rules, the embedded chip has no capability other than identifying the ball and its use is in accordance with any conditions of competition that may have been adopted (e.g., the List of Conforming Golf Balls Condition).

[Roadking2003]

I personally would hate to see a change in the OB rule and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is really not an issue or even a discussion point in the UK. However if it were introduced with either a 1 or 2 shot penalty, thinking about it, in most courses down here in the South West of the England, most people would elect to rehit anyway. This is because close or 80" or 2 metres away from most OB lines is in really deep cabbage, trees, horrible ground or scrub with little or no shot possible - it would more often than not lead to a series of hacks out backwards or sideways, much time spent trying to play the shot or shots and racking up a really big score. Off the top of my head I can't recall what the conditions were like at most of the US courses I've played about 80" or 2 metres from OB lines but maybe they are all perfect with good angles into greens with clear paths but I doubt it. Equally my concern is where people would choose to drop as on courses with red stakes bordering fairways many people look to drop perpendicular to where the ball ends up and not at point of entry - until advised otherwise. When a ball is carved or snapped off the property high over trees way out of sight determining a fair dropping point would be very 'open to interpretation'. For all these reasons it would be a backward step and not a time saver - maybe getting those who advocate it to hit a few more provisionals and not keep walking back would be a better use of time and effort.

 

Yes the typical USA groups who play OB as though it was lateral also play laterals (and therefore OB) by dropping a ball roughly perpendicular to the hazard line AND out in the first cut of rough where they have a view of the green. Same for lost ball, they pick a spot in the short range rough that's an optimistic estimate of their "normal" length and play from there. And in my experience they mostly assess themselves one stroke for this.

 

I remember playing a few rounds at a public course near me with one of the regular dogfight groups there. The way they play there was virtually no penalty for hitting a ball miles into the woods or swamp. The player would just march way, way forward and drop a ball in a good lie just off the fairway and add one stroke. So he'd be hitting three from a perfect life within wedge short iron distance of the green.

 

It only took a couple times where my ball landed in the fairway, trickled into a horrible lie in the rough and I had to hack it out and hit three from the fairway from further out than the guy who lost his ball to realize these guys were nuts. That along with rolling the ball in the fairway and rolling it in bunkers made it a game that only vaguely resembled golf.

 

PS Oh and I left out my favorite part. They would go ahead and putt their short putts rather than picking them up. But anytime someone missed one inside of 2 1/2 or 3 feet the other guys would say that was good don't worry about it. It's like the worst of both worlds. Waste all that time lining up and stroking putts that you're not going to count if you miss!

 

That's not real golf. And it's certainly not typical golf in the USA.

[Roadking2003]

But I guess looking for balls is part of the charm?

 

I do not see any charm in circling around kicking at the long grass hoping to stumble on a ball.

 

As far as I'm concerned the USGA could change the limit, not to 3 minutes but the 30 seconds. If I get to where my ball is supposed to be and can't see it while standing there I lose interest.

 

I agree that looking for balls can ruin a round of golf. I hate courses with very high rough two yards off the fairway. Torrey Pines was that way when I played and it took the fun out of the round.

[North Butte]

I personally would hate to see a change in the OB rule and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is really not an issue or even a discussion point in the UK. However if it were introduced with either a 1 or 2 shot penalty, thinking about it, in most courses down here in the South West of the England, most people would elect to rehit anyway. This is because close or 80" or 2 metres away from most OB lines is in really deep cabbage, trees, horrible ground or scrub with little or no shot possible - it would more often than not lead to a series of hacks out backwards or sideways, much time spent trying to play the shot or shots and racking up a really big score. Off the top of my head I can't recall what the conditions were like at most of the US courses I've played about 80" or 2 metres from OB lines but maybe they are all perfect with good angles into greens with clear paths but I doubt it. Equally my concern is where people would choose to drop as on courses with red stakes bordering fairways many people look to drop perpendicular to where the ball ends up and not at point of entry - until advised otherwise. When a ball is carved or snapped off the property high over trees way out of sight determining a fair dropping point would be very 'open to interpretation'. For all these reasons it would be a backward step and not a time saver - maybe getting those who advocate it to hit a few more provisionals and not keep walking back would be a better use of time and effort.

 

Yes the typical USA groups who play OB as though it was lateral also play laterals (and therefore OB) by dropping a ball roughly perpendicular to the hazard line AND out in the first cut of rough where they have a view of the green. Same for lost ball, they pick a spot in the short range rough that's an optimistic estimate of their "normal" length and play from there. And in my experience they mostly assess themselves one stroke for this.

 

I remember playing a few rounds at a public course near me with one of the regular dogfight groups there. The way they play there was virtually no penalty for hitting a ball miles into the woods or swamp. The player would just march way, way forward and drop a ball in a good lie just off the fairway and add one stroke. So he'd be hitting three from a perfect life within wedge short iron distance of the green.

 

It only took a couple times where my ball landed in the fairway, trickled into a horrible lie in the rough and I had to hack it out and hit three from the fairway from further out than the guy who lost his ball to realize these guys were nuts. That along with rolling the ball in the fairway and rolling it in bunkers made it a game that only vaguely resembled golf.

 

PS Oh and I left out my favorite part. They would go ahead and putt their short putts rather than picking them up. But anytime someone missed one inside of 2 1/2 or 3 feet the other guys would say that was good don't worry about it. It's like the worst of both worlds. Waste all that time lining up and stroking putts that you're not going to count if you miss!

 

That's not real golf. And it's certainly not typical golf in the USA.

 

No, it's definitely the most extreme version I've seen. Although there's another public course in town that has a weekly after-work nine hole "league" which is darned near as bad.

 

But it's the same impulse that drives the more modest watering-down of the game that I see all the time.

 

My point is, nobody really wants to go 30 yards deep in the woods, apply a 2-stroke penalty and then be hitting four from what's probably a nearly unplayable lie. The dozens of guys posting in this thread about how the USGA/R&A ought to change the Rules to something they vaguely describe as "drop near the spot where it went OB" are not to be taken literally.

 

If the Rules were to give them literally that option, they'd still be faced with numerous situations where it's best to go back and re-tee. Which they would not want to do.

[Roadking2003]

My point is, nobody really wants to go 30 yards deep in the woods, apply a 2-stroke penalty and then be hitting four from what's probably a nearly unplayable lie. The dozens of guys posting in this thread about how the USGA/R&A ought to change the Rules to something they vaguely describe as "drop near the spot where it went OB" are not to be taken literally.

 

If the Rules were to give them literally that option, they'd still be faced with numerous situations where it's best to go back and re-tee. Which they would not want to do.

 

Not all OB is 30 yards into the woods. Thousands of OB stakes are close to the green or fairway. For example, Colonial CC, St. Andrews Old Course, Merion hole #2, Chambers Bay #16, etc.

 

And lots of water hazards are also 30 yards into the woods. Look at Augusta National #2 for example.

 

So the woods issue is a non-issue.

 

If I could make the rule, I would play OB just like a lateral water hazard.

[North Butte]

Yeah, I always need reminding that a lot of golf is played on the kinds of courses I avoid like the plague...

[TheCityGame]

Butte... I've totally seen leagues like you described above, and more than one.

 

These are the guys who like to say, "I like to play for fun".

 

One league I played in, if you hit one OB you had to drop where it went out with a two stroke penalty but if you lost a ball, you just dropped where you thought it was lost with a ONE stroke penalty.

 

So, if you hit one over an OB line, you'd better hope you couldn't see it from in bounds. Fun.

 

Some of the guys who run these leagues are unbelievable. If you try to say something, usually they'll say, "that's how we've always done it". The last time I played in this one pickup league was after I missed a four footer on the 9th and the score keeper for our foursome just went, "oh, I'll give you that one". You know, fun.

 

Public course Twilight leagues are every thing I don't like about golf.

[North Butte]

Public course Twilight leagues are every thing I don't like about golf.

 

Yeah, I had actually never experienced what people talk about with "leagues" until a couple years ago. I was a member at a course quite a long drive from my home and office and it made playing other than on weekends pretty much right out. So someone told me this course like 20 minutes away played a nine-hole league-type thing at 5:30pm one night a week during the DST months. And dirt cheap, it's like 18 bucks for the golf including the $10 that goes into the prize pot.

 

I really tried to keep an open mind and I stuck with it for a few weeks that summer. But geez, picking up a two-footer or moving it out of divots is one thing. These guys were just screwing around. It basically came down to as long as you didn't totally duff a shot you were going to end up with a putt for "par" and at worst a conceded 3-footer for "bogey". The average score they turned in for nine holes was at least 10 strokes better than if they had been really playing golf.

 

So I bailed on them. The rest of the summer I'd just get there early, tee off ahead of them and play nine holes by myself.

[LeoLeo99]

Guess I shouldn't feel bad that I was shut out of my corporate golf league. Didn't even know we had a golf league until I was randomly paired with a group and discovered they were in a league from my campus.

 

Our of 100 people I might play with, only 1 or 2 plays by the rules as strictly as I do and I'm no poster child for strictest compliance.

[Shilgy]

^ There are some pretty famous examples of laterals not on the course.

 

So what about this one? Eventually technology will allow us to identify the location of any ball - for the sake of argument lets keep it to lost balls on the course. So now instead of traipsing around for 5 (or 3) minutes looking for a ball, and possibly having to go back and play a provisional, I will more than likely never have a case of a lost ball (on-course) again.... Would you want to the USGA to allow this technology? Depending on course, a lost ball is much more likely than an OB ball.

 

After authorizing a technology to locate your ball they can authorize a drone ball -- one which you can redirect via your smartphone to gently land on the green within gimme distance.

 

Won't golf be fun.

Saw, what's a gimme? Could not find that in the Rules. :)

 

Edit: found it in the 2068 edition of the Rules of Archaic Games -golf edition. Based on the 2054 rule book. The mentioned the game had become too easy and watered down by the 2054 rules changes that all courses closed and people played bumper lane bowling instead.

[Augster]

The technology for finding golf balls is already here. Just put a Bluetooth chip in the middle, pair it with your phone, and it'd point out the spot on a map pretty easily once you got within 30-50 yards of it.

 

Nothing they do in a pace of play effort would come close speeding up play more than allowing that kind of technology to be legal.

 

The hard part will be making a Bluetooth ball cost effective and making it perform similar to good balls.