USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[DavePelz4]

Since I started using this caddie I've never lost a ball.

 

[Stuart_G]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

[KevCarter]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

[sui generis]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

[KevCarter]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

 

Great point. Not to mention many who would like to see the game made easier through technology, are against using technology to properly apply the rules of the same game. The times they are a changin', and I'm never sure in what direction... :-)

[North Butte]

My only reason for mentioning caddies and forecaddies is as examples of the numerous agencies other than the golfer who are allowed to find the golfers ball and pointed it out to him. The only conceivable reason to single out one such agency, an electronic device, is because the person making the rules has a purely personal dislike for seeing a golfer with some kind of gadget in hand.

 

Trying to dress up the distinction between buying an electronic gadget and hiring a personal servant to provide EXACTLY the same information as having something to do with the fundamental "challenge" of the game is ridiculous. Saying it is about "responsibility" is truly bent.

 

Sawgrass gives his opinion as a gentleman, constantly. He never crosses the line. You however, try to strengthen your opinions with personal attacks. Douchebaggery.

 

I have deemed the so-called reasoning he employs to be ridiculous. That is hardly a personal attack. You stil have no given any actual reason that and electronic golf ball finder is different in its effect from caddies, forecaddies, partners, opponents, spectators, TV crews and so forth. Simply more insults directed at anyone who points out the equivalence.

 

Blocked.

[KevCarter]

 

Thank you. Win/Win

[Sawgrass]

My only reason for mentioning caddies and forecaddies is as examples of the numerous agencies other than the golfer who are allowed to find the golfers ball and pointed it out to him. The only conceivable reason to single out one such agency, an electronic device, is because the person making the rules has a purely personal dislike for seeing a golfer with some kind of gadget in hand.

 

Trying to dress up the distinction between buying an electronic gadget and hiring a personal servant to provide EXACTLY the same information as having something to do with the fundamental "challenge" of the game is ridiculous. Saying it is about "responsibility" is truly bent.

 

Sawgrass gives his opinion as a gentleman, constantly. He never crosses the line. You however, try to strengthen your opinions with personal attacks. Douchebaggery.

 

Thank you, it's nice of you to say.

[Sawgrass]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

My major objection of electronic ball finding is its perfection.

 

Now, hit it in the fairway and you'll find it virtually all the time.

 

Hit it in the first cut, no biggie.

 

Hit it in deeper rough, you're taking a chance.

 

Hit it still further off line and you better hit a provisional.

 

We are all used to, and some of us even enjoy, the randomness of good breaks and bad breaks. I don't need total consistency between the quality of my shot and its outcome to be satisfied.

 

I would benefit more than most here if I could find every drive. But I will be disappointed if someone hands that to me through technonogy.

 

Nevertheless -- good debate!

[Sawgrass]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

 

Swat I'm sayin!

[xxio]

There is a par 5 at my course which you can cut over trees so you can go for the green in 2.

 

If you hit it a little low you have a 25% chance of not finding your ball because of the rough and not knowing where the ball lands if it hits the trees.

 

Risk-reward to hit driver.

 

It is part of the hole's design/defense. Lots of 3 and 5 woods off the tee to the right.

 

The possibility of a lost ball is part of the game.

[North Butte]

There is a par 5 at my course which you can cut over trees so you can go for the green in 2.

 

If you hit it a little low you have a 25% chance of not finding your ball because of the rough and not knowing where the ball lands if it hits the trees.

 

Risk-reward to hit driver.

 

It is part of the hole's design/defense. Lots of 3 and 5 woods off the tee to the right.

 

The possibility of a lost ball is part of the game.

 

So if another member of your foursome happens to see your ball, do you play it or not?

 

If another group of golfers or a course maintenance worker were to see it and point it out to you, do you wave them off and re-tee?

 

For that matter do you look for it yourself?

 

Your argument is not specific to some hypothetical electronic golf ball locating aid. You seem to be arguing that hitting a bad shot should cost you strokes whether it can be found or not. Which of course is not part of the game at all, just an imaginary principle you're invoking to argue against something you don't like for purely personal reasons. There's no logic in it at all.

 

Hitting bad shots is always part of the game. But the rules allow us to use perimeter weighted clubs. Just because an implement reduces the severity the of a bad shot it is clearly not per se against the spirit of the game. The line between allowable or not is 100% arbitrary, just like your preferred line between "found by a bystander" and "found by an electronic gadget".

[North Butte]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

 

Yeah, just like when people started using those newfangled laser rangefinders. Scores sure plummeted then! It's hardly even recognizable as the same game since then.

 

[LeoLeo99]

There is a par 5 at my course which you can cut over trees so you can go for the green in 2.

 

If you hit it a little low you have a 25% chance of not finding your ball because of the rough and not knowing where the ball lands if it hits the trees.

 

Risk-reward to hit driver.

 

It is part of the hole's design/defense. Lots of 3 and 5 woods off the tee to the right.

 

The possibility of a lost ball is part of the game.

 

So if another member of your foursome happens to see your ball, do you play it or not?

 

If another group of golfers or a course maintenance worker were to see it and point it out to you, do you wave them off and re-tee?

 

For that matter do you look for it yourself?

 

Your argument is not specific to some hypothetical electronic golf ball locating aid. You seem to be arguing that hitting a bad shot should cost you strokes whether it can be found or not. Which of course is not part of the game at all, just an imaginary principle you're invoking to argue against something you don't like for purely personal reasons. There's no logic in it at all.

 

Hitting bad shots is always part of the game. But the rules allow us to use perimeter weighted clubs. Just because an implement reduces the severity the of a bad shot it is clearly not per se against the spirit of the game. The line between allowable or not is 100% arbitrary, just like your preferred line between "found by a bystander" and "found by an electronic gadget".

 

You could even send your caddie to stand out in the woods to help see the ball land and make it easier to find. If you had a caddie...

[finleysg]

Here's another angle in favor of ball-finding tech: it will help people play as their vision deteriorates. I'm thinking of my father at 82. Left to himself, he'd rarely find his own ball (though he plays mine more often than I'd like). I'm as traditional as anyone, I think, but arguing against help in finding a ball makes no sense to me.

[Sawgrass]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

 

Yeah, just like when people started using those newfangled laser rangefinders. Scores sure plummeted then! It's hardly even recognizable as the same game since then.

 

It really doesn't occur to you that rangefinders were meant to save time, not strokes?

[jslane57]

Of course, the ability to find one's ball is a helpful skill, but that is not what I"m saying. I'm saying the ability to hit your ball exclusively into areas where you can find it is a key skill, and a device which will have you find the ball wherever it lands will significantly limit the importance of that fundamental skill.

 

If there was much more direct and consistent relationship between the quality of the shot and the outcome of whether the ball is found or not I might agree with you. But there isn't so I don't :-). Finding a ball or not is much more about luck then it is the quality of the shot. To me, ending up in the trees and having to deal with the challenging shot that has to thread through trunks and branches, or having to manipulate my shot around or over rocks or out of heavy grass (assuming I have a shot at all) is quite sufficient a "penalty" or consequence to those wayward shots.

 

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

Not to mention all the other things a chipped ball could do. It could tell you exactly how far it flew, how high it went, how fast it went, how much it spun, how far it is from the hole, and more. You could print out exactly where your ball went around the course for analytics. Just finding your ball would be a small at the moment benefit...

[Shilgy]

 

It really doesn't occur to you that rangefinders were meant to save time, not strokes?

Same as the chip? Unless the rough is really nasty or, as a post above noted, the player is practically blind the ball is usually found. Why spend the extra five minutes-per ball-to find it. As Sui noted the challenge in golf is not too find the ball but sometimes it is to extricate yourself from the position your previous shot left you in.

 

PS North Butte. Continuously telling guys they are blocked only affects you. I truly doubt anyone will be hurt or offended if you do so.

[Stuart_G]

I'm torn between the increased use of technology, and the ease finding it and dealing with what comes next. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

Chipped golf balls might well have a larger impact on scoring than all of the 2019 modernization proposals put together. The declared intention of the modernization effort was to make the Rules simpler to understand and apply, not to make the game easier or to lower scores.

 

Possible, although just because a ball can be found, doesn't mean it can be played or that you will automatically get a lower score. And there will still be plenty of places players wont want to even try to find their ball. And the actual impact would be very course dependent (or seasonal for those of us that have to deal with the leaves in the fall) and the resulting score would still be an accurate reflection of the players ability. So not so sure I see that as a bad thing. And hard to say but the impact is probably not nearly as much as the modernization of the equipment has impacted the score.

 

However, while maybe not the primary goal of the modernization, pace of play was clearly one of the secondary objectives and still an ongoing and valid issue that needs to be addressed.

 

Also, having fewer situations were one has to deal with a lost ball or even the potential confusion of having to identify ones ball, or determine if the ball went in a hazard or if a outside agency took the ball, etc.. all those things would make it simpler to apply the rules.

 

So in my mind, that the scores might change is more of a secondary side effect, not the primary goal.

[Newby]

I have no problem with a method of reducing search time and potentially getting over the argument about where to drop for a lost ball.

 

Let the ball manufacturers concentrate on making the ball easier to find (for the same price) and spend less time making them go further. Then clubs wouldn't have to spend millions on making courses longer.

[Sean2]

As has been evident in my prior posts, I'm not interested in the game getting easier. I did support the use of rangefinders, since they don't tell you anything that you can't find out by pacing around -- so IMO they did nothing more than appropriately/effectively speed up play.

 

But you guys who are lusting for an electronic ball finder: do you also wish that slope rangefinders were legal? Would you want electronic aiming/alignment devices to be legal/available? After all, finding balls, selecting clubs and lining you up are all things that a caddie can do for you . . . are your preferences leading you to a significantly electronic future?

 

I think the rangefinder will be very helpful as to pace of play, if nothing else.

 

As to the electronic ball finder? I have mixed feelings about that one. On the one hand I agree with what you are saying, on the other hand most anything to increase the pace of play is probably a good thing. I know guys that will spend more then the allotted five minutes looking for a golf ball, and if they cannot find it, and it's a lateral, trying to figure out where it crossed the line, or having to go back and hit a provisional if the ball is OB. Not to mention the money one might save on lost golf balls. :-)

 

ps: In my opinion there is nothing easy about this game, and I don't think the use of such a device will make the game any easier in any appreciable way.

 

pps: Speaking of easy, some folks think my home course is easy (9 hole played twice is 6003 yards...with a slope of 127...though they haven't played it). I challenged one gentleman to come down and shoot par or better since the course is so "easy". Never heard back from him. The ball finder at my home course would simply tell you the ball is OB or in the hazard...not a whole lot of rough to speak of, but a whole lot of hazards. Anyone who uses the term "easy", when it comes to golf, doesn't understand the game very well.

[North Butte]

Since I started using this caddie I've never lost a ball.

 

 

These guys could have used Odd Job's help...

 

[Shilgy]

I have no problem with a method of reducing search time and potentially getting over the argument about where to drop for a lost ball.

 

Let the ball manufacturers concentrate on making the ball easier to find (for the same price) and spend less time making them go further. Then clubs wouldn't have to spend millions on making courses longer.

The manufacturers would probably prefer we continue to lose balls.

 

Hmm-hey Sawgrass-what manufacturer do you work for?? :)

 

PS I kid I kid......

[Newby]

I have no problem with a method of reducing search time and potentially getting over the argument about where to drop for a lost ball.

 

Let the ball manufacturers concentrate on making the ball easier to find (for the same price) and spend less time making them go further. Then clubs wouldn't have to spend millions on making courses longer.

The manufacturers would probably prefer we continue to lose balls.

 

So no incentive for them to incur the costs of developing 'a findable' ball.

[North Butte]

I have no problem with a method of reducing search time and potentially getting over the argument about where to drop for a lost ball.

 

Let the ball manufacturers concentrate on making the ball easier to find (for the same price) and spend less time making them go further. Then clubs wouldn't have to spend millions on making courses longer.

The manufacturers would probably prefer we continue to lose balls.

 

So no incentive for them to incur the costs of developing 'a findable' ball.

 

If it were popular and there were a market for chipped balls, someone would sell them. Some of these companies are always desperate to come up with some gimmick to differentiate themselves from the others. A genuinely useful gimmick (as opposed to soccer-ball markings or a captial-B log) would be something they'd jump on.

 

At any rate, even if an electronic gadget could direct golfers to a ball sitting in the weeds there are millions of golf balls every year hit into places they are not retrievable. Off the property, swamps, ponds, dense underbrush, desert vegetation, deep gully or barrancas. Sometimes it would be of no help at all to know "Your ball is over THERE"!

[Sawgrass]

I have no problem with a method of reducing search time and potentially getting over the argument about where to drop for a lost ball.

 

Let the ball manufacturers concentrate on making the ball easier to find (for the same price) and spend less time making them go further. Then clubs wouldn't have to spend millions on making courses longer.

The manufacturers would probably prefer we continue to lose balls.

 

Hmm-hey Sawgrass-what manufacturer do you work for?? :)

 

PS I kid I kid......

 

My greatest value to golf ball manufacturers would be as a swing coach, concisely delivering sweeping hooks and shocking slices throughout the land.

[xenocide1]

One huge advantage of ball finding technology not mentioned yet: actually being able to let rough be rough. On many if not most golf courses in my area, if a tree is not in your way being in the rough is an advantage for most players because the rough is enough to tee up your ball but not enough to hurt your shot.

 

Why? Because thick rough slows play too much because players can never find their ball.I would love if courses could have lots more areas of penalizing rough.

 

I've mentioned at courses I feel the rough is too easy to play out of but am always told it is for ease of finding balls.

 

I also have to agree with the posts about leaves. When the leaves are falling your chances of finding your ball have nothing to do with the quality of your shot.

 

Ball finding tech would be a huge boon for the game and a smart grounds crew would have no problem keeping it from making the game easier.

 

[smeech8000]

One huge advantage of ball finding technology not mentioned yet: actually being able to let rough be rough. On many if not most golf courses in my area, if a tree is not in your way being in the rough is an advantage for most players because the rough is enough to tee up your ball but not enough to hurt your shot.

 

Why? Because thick rough slows play too much because players can never find their ball.I would love if courses could have lots more areas of penalizing rough.

 

I've mentioned at courses I feel the rough is too easy to play out of but am always told it is for ease of finding balls.

 

I also have to agree with the posts about leaves. When the leaves are falling your chances of finding your ball have nothing to do with the quality of your shot.

 

Ball finding tech would be a huge boon for the game and a smart grounds crew would have no problem keeping it from making the game easier.

 

:swoon:

 

The game is far from being made too easy. Rough does not get cut at most courses due to limited manpower, not as a conscious course setup decision. If you want more challenge, move back a set of tees or play more competitive golf.

 

The #1 killer in getting new players to the game is the time required to play. Shorter rough makes rounds faster - not only are balls easier to locate, their lies are more playable. I won't even comment on your tidbit about most players preferring rough due to the ability to "tee it up"...

 

Ball-finding technology would create a new revenue stream in the industry, but I doubt it would have a significant effect on growing the game, and for that reason, I'm out. </SharkTank>

[HitEmTrue]

One huge advantage of ball finding technology not mentioned yet: actually being able to let rough be rough. On many if not most golf courses in my area, if a tree is not in your way being in the rough is an advantage for most players because the rough is enough to tee up your ball but not enough to hurt your shot.

 

Why? Because thick rough slows play too much because players can never find their ball.I would love if courses could have lots more areas of penalizing rough.

 

I've mentioned at courses I feel the rough is too easy to play out of but am always told it is for ease of finding balls.

 

I also have to agree with the posts about leaves. When the leaves are falling your chances of finding your ball have nothing to do with the quality of your shot.

 

Ball finding tech would be a huge boon for the game and a smart grounds crew would have no problem keeping it from making the game easier.

 

:swoon:

 

The game is far from being made too easy. Rough does not get cut at most courses due to limited manpower, not as a conscious course setup decision. If you want more challenge, move back a set of tees or play more competitive golf.

 

The #1 killer in getting new players to the game is the time required to play. Shorter rough makes rounds faster - not only are balls easier to locate, their lies are more playable. I won't even comment on your tidbit about most players preferring rough due to the ability to "tee it up"...

 

You misunderstood him. :)

[xenocide1]

:swoon:

 

The game is far from being made too easy. Rough does not get cut at most courses due to limited manpower, not as a conscious course setup decision. If you want more challenge, move back a set of tees or play more competitive golf.

 

The #1 killer in getting new players to the game is the time required to play. Shorter rough makes rounds faster - not only are balls easier to locate, their lies are more playable. I won't even comment on your tidbit about most players preferring rough due to the ability to "tee it up"...

 

Ball-finding technology would create a new revenue stream in the industry, but I doubt it would have a significant effect on growing the game, and for that reason, I'm out. </SharkTank>

 

I think HitEmTrue1 is right that you misunderstood part of what I was saying. I don't know players who move their ball in the rough to tee it up on purpose (ok, everyone has prob. come across "that guy" who does that but in general). I'm saying the rough is so short everywhere that normal natural lies will leave the ball sitting 1/4" to 1/2" above the dirt, yet because it is so short it does not effect your swing or shot at all. You just look at your yardage, grab your normal club, and swing your normal swing. Yes single digit caps will prefer the fairway to control spin close to the green but most mid to high caps will hit better more consistent shots with the 1/2" cushion.

 

I do think that the rough should have some effect on your shot. I'm not talking about 2 foot tall fescue where you will be lucky to not whiff on your swing or US Open style that you need to hack straight back to the fairway. Just a little longer rough so your ball will settle enough to at least make you think about your next shot, maybe club up one or give it that little extra to get though the grass.

 

Obviously if you are mowing an area only once every ten to 15 days do to man power/budget issues you would need to mow short because of the time between next mowing. Most places I've seen though mow every couple of days anyway so the only adjustment would be the height of the mower deck. Also obviously you need to account for average number of players per day, course layout, average player skill etc. 350 yards from the green on a par five in the middle of trees? Keep it short. Inside 50 yards on a short par 3? Have some areas of more penalizing rough.

 

Maybe I'm overestimating it but I think it would make a noticeable (positive) difference to the way courses are maintained if you could eliminate the need for players to search for their ball. The grounds committee and grounds crew can take all factors into account and make decisions as needed.

 

My comments about not "making the game easier" were in response to some of those against ball finding tech. A lot of the comments against seem to be based (at least in the way I read them) on eliminating the possibility of not finding you ball making the game easier. I'm saying if that is a concern a grounds committee could easily negate that concern. Take the example given of cutting the corner over trees. Now that is a risk/reward and part of the risk is that if you don't clear you might not find your ball. If you're that worried that chipped balls make the risk too small, a rich course could relandscape and a poor course could just make that area out of bounds. I think there are lots of ways to mitigate the worry of off line shots no longer having a possibility of not being found. (enough double negatives in this paragraph for everyone?)

 

Personally I have absolutely no problem with every single shot that stays on the course and out of a hazard being found immediately and frankly find it a little strange that anyone would disagree.

 

You say the number #1 killer for new players is time to play but you are against a tech that would greatly shorten the time required to play? And growing the game should of course be taken into account but it is not the only factor. Ball finding tech would make the game more enjoyable for new players and veteran players and the people playing behind any players.

 

As for the other proposed rule changes I am in favor of the majority of them. The two I dislike the most are leaving the flagstick in and dropping from any height. Both seem to be trying to fix problems that don't exist. Plus I would hate to be in a group where 2 players always want the stick in and 2 always want it out, you'd be pulling and replacing the pin 5-10 times per green. Plus those two rule changes just "feel" wrong. Not exactly scientific I know but that's my opinion.