USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Sawgrass]

You know what thought did.

Did it do something along the lines of the "making/an/a**/out/of/you/and/me" -- assume thing?

 

No. In the UK the saying is that "thought killed the cat."

No me neither.

 

I dont know where I got that idea from.

I will let you super intelligent superior beings play amongst yourselves then.

If thought truly killed the cat (thank you for that), then super intelligent beings should play far away from each other. You know, with all the thought going on and everything.

[Sawgrass]

BTW, in these parts it's curiosity that kills cats.

 

Poor cats, every society seems to be out to get them.

[Halebopp]

I thought curiosity killed the cat so maybe we should just stop asking questions and waiting for the new Rules to guide us all.

[Londoner]

BTW, in these parts it's curiosity that kills cats.

 

Poor cats, every society seems to be out to get them.

Thats a London saying as well, pretty interchangeable. Equally as non sensible.

[Londoner]

Either way, giving people the oppurtunity to go "gardening" for 20 minutes on each putt is a daft idea.

[klebs01]

People garden as much as they want to now. It speeds things up for the few people that want a ruling. It simplifies the rules and increases consistency.

[Londoner]

People garden as much as they want to now. It speeds things up for the few people that want a ruling. It simplifies the rules and increases consistency.

I disagree. They dont in my groups. The current rule specifically says old holes or damage caused by ball impact. The new rules say you can repair practically anything. Whos to say if an imperfection is footprint, flag, club, animal, which is legally repairable or an unrepairable natural imperfection or defect?

[Roadking2003]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

[davep043]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

I agree, lets go back to the pre-1960 rules. You can't repair ball marks or anything else, you can't clean your ball, you can't even mark and lift it unless it interferes with the play of another ball. 100% consistent. Put it on the tee, and don't touch it until you pull it from the hole. (And of course I'm exaggerating)

At this stage, the new rules will be whatever they will be. I know I responded with my comments on the USGA website (I hope everyone did), and I hope that a few of the proposals get overturned, but its out of all of our hands now.

[Sawgrass]

I know I responded with my comments on the USGA website (I hope everyone did), and I hope that a few of the proposals get overturned, but its out of all of our hands now.

Perhaps it will be viewed (for at least a little while) as an election. If you didn't "vote" you have no right to complain about the outcome.

[North Butte]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

I agree, lets go back to the pre-1960 rules. You can't repair ball marks or anything else, you can't clean your ball, you can't even mark and lift it unless it interferes with the play of another ball. 100% consistent. Put it on the tee, and don't touch it until you pull it from the hole. (And of course I'm exaggerating)

At this stage, the new rules will be whatever they will be. I know I responded with my comments on the USGA website (I hope everyone did), and I hope that a few of the proposals get overturned, but its out of all of our hands now.

 

Every single thing about the Rules of Golf is someone simply drawing an arbitrary line and saying THIS is allowable while THAT is not. There's no other way it could be. There's no obvious of automatic reason for the hole to be 4-1/2" or the ball to weigh 1.whatever ounces or for rounds to have 18 holes or for sand to be treated differently by the Rules than grass. Somebody has to assigned "allowed" or "not allowed" to every aspect of the game and all this is just quibble about the details.

[Vindog]

I always heard it as "...Thought he had to fart, but he s***t his pants"

[davep043]

I know I responded with my comments on the USGA website (I hope everyone did), and I hope that a few of the proposals get overturned, but its out of all of our hands now.

Perhaps it will be viewed (for at least a little while) as an election. If you didn't "vote" you have no right to complain about the outcome.

No matter what they decide, someone will be complaining, I have no doubt about that, but I promise I won't be one of the ones complaining about what got changed, or didn't get changed. I'll probably complain about the complainers, though.

[irvnasty]

I will echo those who would in theory be in favor of a ball-finding mechanism. A ball is lost when you cannot find it, but there are already numerous technologies in use to help a player find his ball (or follow it in the air). I have lousy eyesight. I use orange balls so I can see them better both in flight and at rest. Some people may use other hi-vis balls or glowing ones.

 

More to the point, I use a fairly significant technological innovation that places curved plastic lenses in front of my face so that my eyesight is unnaturally good for my own eyes. My brother has gone far more futuristic: he actually had someone shoot lasers into the lenses of his eyes to improve his ability to find the ball.

 

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

It seems to me part of a larger discussion on the role of technology in golf. I don't want the game to be easier, but I am willing to consider changes that might make the game marginally easier in exchange for quality of experience changes like faster pace of play or lengthening the effective season where courses get coated in leaves and brush (or early season when balls can plug easily in muddy fairways).

 

We all have our own thresholds, I guess. I would not support widening the hole or allowing replacement of a ball in a fairway divot. I don't think clubs or balls should get much longer, because I think the economics and playability of courses would head in a bad direction. But, to me, a ball is lost when it cannot be found. The means of finding it doesn't much matter to me.

[Halebopp]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

[Sawgrass]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

The above sentence of yours that I bolded is key to both Irvnasty's issue and the general upset with the Stroke and Distance penalty. I very much respect this aspect of the challenge brought to us by the game, and while reading your comment the metaphor of fairways lined with high nets placed 10 yards into the rough on either side came to mind. For me, it would ruin everything.

[LeoLeo99]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

The above sentence of yours that I bolded is key to both Irvnasty's issue and the general upset with the Stroke and Distance penalty. I very much respect this aspect of the challenge brought to us by the game, and while reading your comment the metaphor of fairways lined with high nets placed 10 yards into the rough on either side came to mind. For me, it would ruin everything.

 

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour. By your logic, it should be up the player and his caddie to find the ball. I'm having trouble with the logic that it's ok to have 1000 people help you look for your ball but you can't use a flashlight to help yourself.

[Sawgrass]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

The above sentence of yours that I bolded is key to both Irvnasty's issue and the general upset with the Stroke and Distance penalty. I very much respect this aspect of the challenge brought to us by the game, and while reading your comment the metaphor of fairways lined with high nets placed 10 yards into the rough on either side came to mind. For me, it would ruin everything.

 

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour. By your logic, it should be up the player and his caddie to find the ball. I'm having trouble with the logic that it's ok to have 1000 people help you look for your ball but you can't use a flashlight to help yourself.

You may think that's where "my logic" leads, but it doesn't.

 

I'm fine with opponents, fellow competitors, marshals and spectators helping. I'd also be fine without it. What I don't want is technology (or ubiquitous netting!) significantly limiting the risk one takes in making a shot.

 

You've got to draw the line somewhere, Leo. I happen to be happy with the current level of challenge.

[Londoner]

What about giant inflatable bumpers like a bowling alley? Or attach a thread to the ball and rewind it on a fishing reel. :-)

[davep043]

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour.

Aside from the technology of "beeping balls", and I agree, I wouldn't want a technological solution to help locate wayward shots, I wonder why the gallery can help find a ball, but can't help bring a rules infraction to light. Alas, that ship has sailed.

[Halebopp]

What about giant inflatable bumpers like a bowling alley? Or attach a thread to the ball and rewind it on a fishing reel. :-)

 

That's what it feels like when you see courses with "lateral forest hazards". The fishing reel could be a blast, especially when you bend the ball around a tree, the line gets caught and all of a sudden you have a ball flying circles around a tree at 100+ mph. :)

 

As for Leo's comment. I'll echo Sawgrass' thoughts on the subject. :)

[Augster]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

The above sentence of yours that I bolded is key to both Irvnasty's issue and the general upset with the Stroke and Distance penalty. I very much respect this aspect of the challenge brought to us by the game, and while reading your comment the metaphor of fairways lined with high nets placed 10 yards into the rough on either side came to mind. For me, it would ruin everything.

 

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour. By your logic, it should be up the player and his caddie to find the ball. I'm having trouble with the logic that it's ok to have 1000 people help you look for your ball but you can't use a flashlight to help yourself.

 

This. Absolutely.

 

Finding your ball isn’t a skill at all. It should be a given if you’ve kept it on the property.

 

 

[Londoner]

What about using a flashlight to find the ball? How about a UV flashlight with balls designed to respond? Obviously unusual equipment that could likely not be used during a stroke, but my understanding indicates that it would be legal for a search. Same too with a magnified rangefinder.

 

Everything I have described is using technology to accomplish the same things that eyes do: use electromagnetic wavelengths to locate your ball. I just find it odd that the visible spectrum (aided or unaided) and the UV spectrum are fine or probably fine, but the radio wavelengths are somehow abhorrent to the spirit of the game.

 

Well, it depends completely on how much people want to value the skill of keeping the ball in play - course management skills of choosing the correct club and shot and the ability to execute the shot. Missing the fairway will be less penalizing with artificial equipment that helps you to locate the ball.

 

I'm not sure if I'd like that, just as I don't like the suggestion of penalty areas. At least, pretty much every man learns to play the game thinking it's all about hitting the ball as far off the tee as possible and then trying to hit the green in regulation, no matter what the lie is and how many trees are on the way. I'm guilty of that too but over the years you start to figure out the important skill is keeping the ball in play.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to locate your ball after a wayward shot or in the odd case of the ball simply disappearing when it shouldn't be physically possible but I'm not sure it's worth it in comparison to it promoting the bomb-and-gouge style of play. It doesn't mean the system would find your ball playable but the percentages for you needing to hit your 3rd shot off the tee do decrease.

The above sentence of yours that I bolded is key to both Irvnasty's issue and the general upset with the Stroke and Distance penalty. I very much respect this aspect of the challenge brought to us by the game, and while reading your comment the metaphor of fairways lined with high nets placed 10 yards into the rough on either side came to mind. For me, it would ruin everything.

 

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour. By your logic, it should be up the player and his caddie to find the ball. I'm having trouble with the logic that it's ok to have 1000 people help you look for your ball but you can't use a flashlight to help yourself.

 

This. Absolutely.

 

Finding your ball isn't a skill at all. It should be a given if you've kept it on the property.

Finding it may not be a skill.

Not losing it is!

[irvnasty]

Finding it may not be a skill.

Not losing it is!

 

Unquestionably. I just think the definition of "lost" is pretty arbitrary. I would lose quite a few more balls (and did for years before Volvik made good quality colored balls) that are not poorly hit (even in the fairway) if I had to play white ones and didn't get help from other players. I would lose virtually every ball if the powers that be outlawed enhanced vision by optometry.

 

If I can use a flashlight to add unnatural electromagnetic radiation in my search, I think that adding radio waves is frankly implied to be fine by association. After all, frequencies of radiation are pretty simple to convert. Smart glasses that could identify an RFID signal are very much possible even today. Perhaps the best solution is to outlaw flashlights and UV flashlights for searching. To me, that would at least be consistent across the frequency spectrum, and I have no issue with that as an outcome.

 

But I don't see any parallel at all to nets or bumpers on bowling alleys. Ball-finding technologies redefine the circumstances when a ball is lost, but do not directionally or physically correct mishits. The degree to which the potential of a lost ball is a punishment for a poor shot is already perfectly arbitrary and allows the use of technological assistance in ways that seem to be equally arbitrary. Creating greater consistency in the definition of "lost" is not comparable to removing the topographical consequences of directional mishits. That's just a really bad analogy.

 

But I concede that better ball-finding would be more conducive to a bomb-and-gouge style, albeit only very slightly. It's worth consideration how deleterious that would be to the game. Nevertheless, I maintain that consistency in "losing" balls ceased to exist more or less when glasses became available to the common man. Ever since then, ball finding technology has been broadly used and broadly accepted. E.g. for the entire history of the game.

[nsxguy]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, he's back,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :taunt:

[Halebopp]

Then why are the gallery or marshals allowed to look for balls on the PGA tour. By your logic, it should be up the player and his caddie to find the ball. I'm having trouble with the logic that it's ok to have 1000 people help you look for your ball but you can't use a flashlight to help yourself.

 

This. Absolutely.

 

Finding your ball isn't a skill at all. It should be a given if you've kept it on the property.

Finding it may not be a skill.

Not losing it is!

 

Getting a gallery to help you search is also definitely a skill (you need to be pretty good at something to gather a gallery to watch you play golf). I'm not sure why PGA Tour is brought to these discussions though. That's maybe 0.0001% of all rounds played and those rounds are played under very special circumstances. Heck, the top pros even have some sort of bumbers but we call them galleries, all of them get the grandstands to help them also. But what they do and have is just a drop in the ocean and shouldn't be the basis for what the other 99.999% of golfers do and how we play the game.

[Halebopp]

But I don't see any parallel at all to nets or bumpers on bowling alleys.

 

The bowling alley was a reference to not requiring people to even find their balls if the fairways were surrounded by "lateral forest hazards". It's not even as much about bomb and gouge as it is about the fact that golf wouldn't be played by hitting a ball from point A to point B to point C until holed. It would be hitting a ball from point A, walking up the fairway and dropping a ball to point D without a clue of or care for point B where first stroke ended up if you missed the fairway.

[Stuart_G]

Since there is no such thing as a "lateral forest hazard", It's not much of a consideration. And even if there were some type of lateral hazard (or in the new rules a 'penalty area'), finding the ball is not generally a requirement for getting relief from such a hazard (to point D) so really largely irrelevant to any argument for or against electronic aids to assist in finding the ball.

 

Personally I'm for anything that might help with pace of play and the use of technology to help find the ball doesn't bother me in the least or take anything away from the game. I doesn't change the fact that I have to play the ball where it lies and be fully responsible for the quality of that previous shot. And it does eliminate some of those low percentage aberrations that are due to the chaotic nature of the game where you can't find it because of some random occurrence and not because of the quality of the shot.

 

But that doesn't mean I would push hard for such a change. I don't really have a big problem with the rule as it is either (well, except maybe in the fall - where I'll usually loose maybe about a half dozen balls with good quality shots per season because of the leaves).

[Halebopp]

Since there is no such thing as a "lateral forest hazard", It's not much of a consideration. And even if there were some type of lateral hazard (or in the new rules a 'penalty area'), finding the ball is not generally a requirement for getting relief from such a hazard (to point D) so really largely irrelevant to any argument for or against electronic aids to assist in finding the ball.

 

Personally I'm for anything that might help with pace of play and the use of technology to help find the ball doesn't bother me in the least or take anything away from the game. I doesn't change the fact that I have to play the ball where it lies and be fully responsible for the quality of that previous shot. And it does eliminate some of those low percentage aberrations that are due to the chaotic nature of the game where you can't find it because of some random occurrence and not because of the quality of the shot.

 

But that doesn't mean I would push hard for such a change. I don't really have a big problem with the rule as it is either (well, except maybe in the fall - where I'll usually loose maybe about a half dozen balls with good quality shots per season because of the leaves).

 

There are a couple of different discussions going on (at least I thought there was). One being about the penalty areas (or the already existing lateral water hazards that don't comply with the definition) and one about equipment helping to locate a ball. My previous post was solely about the former. Both of the issues do revolve around the same idea though, a player's need to make a stroke that keeps the ball in play and findable. Both of these changes would lessen the importance of that objective.

[Stuart_G]

There are a couple of different discussions going on (at least I thought there was). One being about the penalty areas (or the already existing lateral water hazards that don't comply with the definition) and one about equipment helping to locate a ball. My previous post was solely about the former.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Both of the issues do revolve around the same idea though, a player's need to make a stroke that keeps the ball in play and findable. Both of these changes would lessen the importance of that objective.

 

While I agree there is a relationship, whether that core idea you are using as a connection is truly a core premise of the game is a different question and the main point of contention. The fact that the rules have to deal with lost balls and even the resulting penalty, doesn't necessarily imply that "keeping the ball findable" is a core value of the game - as opposed to just a necessary requirement. And "in play" and "findable" are largely very independent concepts - but that's at best just a tangent issue. I can understand both sides to the argument - but I don't really see much in the rules that adds a lot of strength to either side so there will likely be lots of different opinions on the subject.

 

Personally I think it has little to do with that and the main reason that door hasn't opened is that there is just a general aversion or extreme amount of caution when it comes to letting any technological advances into the game. That's not really a criticism either (such caution is not necessarily a bad thing), just an observation.