USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Sawgrass]

It seems to me that Irvnasty's issue here might be related to a medical condition (poor eyesight). And the 14-3 provides possible relief:

 

Exceptions:

 

1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or device is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b) the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device, and © the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the player any undue advantage over other players.

 

I'd consider asking for an exemption from the base rule rather than changing the Rule for everyone.

[Stuart_G]

It's an interesting point and question - but think about it for a second. Would you really approve such an exception if it gave the individual a superior capability to find the ball compared with the other competitors? Sure, I can see approving anything that would give the individual an comparative capability but I don't see how letting him go above and beyond would be acceptable to the field. It would be like granting the million dollar man an exception to allow him to use his bionics to out driver everyone :-)

[Sawgrass]

It's an interesting point and question - but think about it for a second. Would you really approve such an exception if it gave the individual a superior capability to find the ball compared with the other competitors? Sure, I can see approving anything that would give the individual an comparative capability but I don't see how letting him go above and beyond would be acceptable to the field. It would be like granting the million dollar man an exception to allow him to use his bionics to out driver everyone :-)

True, but D 14-3/15 already puts the burden on the Committee to differentiate between artificial limbs which provide undue advantages and those that don't. If it were up to me I'd take a liberal perspective on it in order to be inclusive, and easily accept the rare occasions where the physically disadvantaged person might get a small edge.

[Newby]

It's an interesting point and question - but think about it for a second. Would you really approve such an exception if it gave the individual a superior capability to find the ball compared with the other competitors? Sure, I can see approving anything that would give the individual an comparative capability but I don't see how letting him go above and beyond would be acceptable to the field. It would be like granting the million dollar man an exception to allow him to use his bionics to out driver everyone :-)

Isn't that what clause c) is aimed at?

[Stuart_G]

The point is then exactly which of the existing devices would you then approve for our poor short sighted competitor?

[davep043]

I'm not sure that @irvnaszty is looking for a device to use for himself alone, I believe he'd like such systems to be allowed under the rules. As such, he's not asking for an exception. Separately, this should probably fall under Rule 12 - Searching for and Identifying Ball, as opposed to Rule 14. To allow a radio homing device to be implanted in a ball would require changing the rule that a ball

must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.

[North Butte]

If I'm playing with or against someone whose eyesight is so poor that they lose sight of every shot immediately after hitting it, I'd rather them be allowed to use a magic golf ball finder than to expect me to help watch and find their ball. Anyone who thinks tromping around in the rough hole after hole after hole looking for golf balls is fundamentally an important and valuable element of the game needs to adjust their meds.

[Sawgrass]

I'm not sure that @irvnaszty is looking for a device to use for himself alone, I believe he'd like such systems to be allowed under the rules. As such, he's not asking for an exception. Separately, this should probably fall under Rule 12 - Searching for and Identifying Ball, as opposed to Rule 14. To allow a radio homing device to be implanted in a ball would require changing the rule that a ball

must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.

 

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).

[finleysg]

I would be in favor of RFID or some other tech that would help us find our ball. The aggravation of losing a ball, for me, is the ultimate day-ruiner on the golf course, especially when it's unexpected. It's not always a horrid shot. Often it's the quirky bounce over a rise and out of site, or bluegrass that has grown so thick you have to step on the ball to find it.

 

I believe this kind of tech would serve to make the game more fun, and only (very) slightly easier.

[Sawgrass]

If I'm playing with or against someone whose eyesight is so poor that they lose sight of every shot immediately after hitting it, I'd rather them be allowed to use a magic golf ball finder than to expect me to help watch and find their ball. Anyone who thinks tromping around in the rough hole after hole after hole looking for golf balls is fundamentally an important and valuable element of the game needs to adjust their meds.

You can certainly agree to play with your friend using such unusual equipment outside of the Rules. No need to change things for everyone else.

[finleysg]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy. I don't see technology that helps find the ball as a dodge from the consequences of the shot. You'll still end up in places where relief is impossible and, as a result, will take a full stroke and distance penalty.

 

As a side note, how often have you lost one in a hazard and breathed a sigh of relief because you could take a drop?

[Augster]

I think irvnasty’s point may have been missed. He’s not saying his eyesight is horrible. He’s saying he wears glasses to see. Without the glasses, seeing a ball is impossible. Glasses are a basic tech advancement that skews lightwaves and makes it easy for his eyes to see.

 

If the ruling bodies truly felt finding your ball was an essential skill of the game, they would not allow eyeglasses. They would fall under unusual equipment.

 

Playing the shot once you are over the ball, moving the ball from here to there, is the essence of golf. Finding the ball should be a given.

 

Maybe some of you play with lots of water or deep woods where searching for a ball is pointless. At my course though, most of our searches are because of blind drives and approaches where you can’t see the landing areas. The ball is somewhere, but you can’t see where it landed or if it caromed off a sprinkler head or what have you. Add in a blind drive of 230+ yards into long rough and finding the ball, which is in play and likely less than 30 feet off the fairway, becomes luck.

 

We have 7 likely landing spots that one will have to search for their ball every single day. It’s annoying. To use technology to go straight to the ball will definitely save time.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

Waist high fescue on one side of a hole.

 

You don't think the architect meant that as a menace to be avoided due to the potential of a lost ball S&D? You think it's lazy mowing?

 

The fear of losing a ball is a big part of the fun/challenge of golf.

[finleysg]

Waist high fescue on one side of a hole.

 

You don't think the architect meant that as a menace to be avoided due to the potential of a lost ball S&D? You think it's lazy mowing?

 

The fear of losing a ball is a big part of the fun/challenge of golf.

 

Isn't the difficulty of playing the shot from tall fescue enough discouragement?

 

The location of your ball is just information. Using technology to get that information will someday, I hope, be both practical and legal.

[Sawgrass]

Waist high fescue on one side of a hole.

 

You don't think the architect meant that as a menace to be avoided due to the potential of a lost ball S&D? You think it's lazy mowing?

 

The fear of losing a ball is a big part of the fun/challenge of golf.

 

Isn't the difficulty of playing the shot from tall fescue enough discouragement?

 

The location of your ball is just information. Using technology to get that information will someday, I hope, be both practical and legal.

Often, finding your ball in/near fescue allows a shot (if you were so bold as to take the risk of approaching it). Other times, an unplayable drop in that location will suffice a the cost of just one stoke. A lost ball there will cost you both the stroke and the distance.

 

For me, that variability greatly enhances the strategy of shot selection/course management. I truly like it -- and this is coming from a guy who has to apply ESC a crazy number of times in a season.

 

You may be right that someday the Rules will accommodate this. If they do, I'll regret the change. But I'll be happy for those of you who got your way.

[davep043]

Waist high fescue on one side of a hole.

 

You don't think the architect meant that as a menace to be avoided due to the potential of a lost ball S&D? You think it's lazy mowing?

 

The fear of losing a ball is a big part of the fun/challenge of golf.

 

Isn't the difficulty of playing the shot from tall fescue enough discouragement?

 

The location of your ball is just information. Using technology to get that information will someday, I hope, be both practical and legal.

Similarly, isn't the loss of a golf ball in a hazard enough of a discouragement? Why add penalty strokes on top of that?

 

There is a minimum level of skill required to hit the ball to a location where it can be found and hit again. I don't see that we have a "right" to find any ball that remains on the property, so I wouldn't encourage a rule change to allow a "homing golf ball". This goes beyond use of vision correction, which corrects a medical condition and brings those who need it to an equal footing with the rest of the players.

[finleysg]

Waist high fescue on one side of a hole.

 

You don't think the architect meant that as a menace to be avoided due to the potential of a lost ball S&D? You think it's lazy mowing?

 

The fear of losing a ball is a big part of the fun/challenge of golf.

 

Isn't the difficulty of playing the shot from tall fescue enough discouragement?

 

The location of your ball is just information. Using technology to get that information will someday, I hope, be both practical and legal.

Often, finding your ball in/near fescue allows a shot (if you were so bold as to take the risk of approaching it). Other times, an unplayable drop in that location will suffice a the cost of just one stoke. A lost ball there will cost you both the stroke and the distance.

 

For me, that variability greatly enhances the strategy of shot selection/course management. I truly like it -- and this is coming from a guy who has to apply ESC a crazy number of times in a season.

 

You may be right that someday the Rules will accommodate this. If they do, I'll regret the change. But I'll be happy for those of you who got your way.

 

Heh - I'll buy you a beer if I "win".

[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?

 

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

 

So, answer the question.

[Roadking2003]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

[davep043]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

You mean replay the shot, no penalty stroke? In that case, if you think it might be in a really bad spot, you're better off NOT finding the ball. If you did find it, and had to take an unplayable lie penalty, you might end off much worse. That's totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

[Roadking2003]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

You mean replay the shot, no penalty stroke? In that case, if you think it might be in a really bad spot, you're better off NOT finding the ball. If you did find it, and had to take an unplayable lie penalty, you might end off much worse. That's totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

Wouldn't it be the same as unplayable? Go back to the tee (or where you played your last stroke) and rehit?

 

If you hit your ball in the woods and find it but can't play it, you can rehit. If you hit the same shot and don't find it you must rehit plus add a stroke.

 

Why should finding the ball save you a stroke?

[finleysg]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

You mean replay the shot, no penalty stroke? In that case, if you think it might be in a really bad spot, you're better off NOT finding the ball. If you did find it, and had to take an unplayable lie penalty, you might end off much worse. That's totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

Wouldn't it be the same as unplayable? Go back to the tee (or where you played your last stroke) and rehit?

 

If you hit your ball in the woods and find it but can't play it, you can rehit. If you hit the same shot and don't find it you must rehit plus add a stroke.

 

Why should finding the ball save you a stroke?

 

Not sure I'm following. When taking an unplayable lie, all three options still incur a one shot penalty.

[Sawgrass]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

You mean replay the shot, no penalty stroke? In that case, if you think it might be in a really bad spot, you're better off NOT finding the ball. If you did find it, and had to take an unplayable lie penalty, you might end off much worse. That's totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

Wouldn't it be the same as unplayable? Go back to the tee (or where you played your last stroke) and rehit?

 

If you hit your ball in the woods and find it but can't play it, you can rehit. If you hit the same shot and don't find it you must rehit plus add a stroke.

 

Why should finding the ball save you a stroke?

I'm confused by your post. A lost ball is a required Stroke and Distance penalty. An unplayable ball provides the option of the Stroke and Distance, plus two other options which allow different drop locations than the S&D, but both also require a stroke penalty.

 

Finding the ball in an unplayable position never saves you a stroke compared to losing it, though it possibly saves you some distance. The reason "why" is that the Rules cause you to value finding your ball. The second of Tuft's "two great principles of golf" is that you should "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Of course the Rules stray from this general principal for convenience (you are not required to go home because you dunk one in the lake) but they do what they can to try to stay as true as possible to that principle balancing convenience and propriety against it.

 

You seem to be advocating for a more generous ruling just to save a stroke. While you have every right to wish for that, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Roadking2003]

Here's another thought I just had about a lost ball. The harshness of the penalty (stroke and distance) is not about punishment, but simply that there is no other fair remedy.

 

A distance only penalty would be fair.

You mean replay the shot, no penalty stroke? In that case, if you think it might be in a really bad spot, you're better off NOT finding the ball. If you did find it, and had to take an unplayable lie penalty, you might end off much worse. That's totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

Wouldn't it be the same as unplayable? Go back to the tee (or where you played your last stroke) and rehit?

 

If you hit your ball in the woods and find it but can't play it, you can rehit. If you hit the same shot and don't find it you must rehit plus add a stroke.

 

Why should finding the ball save you a stroke?

 

Not sure I'm following. When taking an unplayable lie, all three options still incur a one shot penalty.

 

Oops. My bad. You are correct.

[Roadking2003]

The second of Tuft's "two great principles of golf" is that you should "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Of course the Rules stray from this general principal for convenience (you are not required to go home because you dunk one in the lake) but they do what they can to try to stay as true as possible to that principle balancing convenience and propriety against it.

 

Actually, the rules stray from that principle quite often and not just for convenience. Probably more than a dozen times.

 

There are so many exceptions to that principle that I'm not sure it's a valid principle anymore.

[rogolf]

The second of Tuft's "two great principles of golf" is that you should "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Of course the Rules stray from this general principal for convenience (you are not required to go home because you dunk one in the lake) but they do what they can to try to stay as true as possible to that principle balancing convenience and propriety against it.

 

Actually, the rules stray from that principle quite often and not just for convenience. Probably more than a dozen times.

 

There are so many exceptions to that principle that I'm not sure it's a valid principle anymore.

See Rule 1-1. It's the embodiment of that principle.

[North Butte]

Tee it up and don’t touch it until it’s in the hole, except when the following 112 pages of Rules and Decisions say otherwise.

 

The game is very simple, as you see.

[sui generis]

Tee it up and don’t touch it until it’s in the hole, except when the following 112 pages of Rules and Decisions say otherwise.

 

The game is very simple, as you see.

 

Your contempt for the Rules would be even greater were it not for Rules 23 through 25. Ignorance of the Rules is a choice.

[larryw]

Probably should stay out of the discussion and only read to learn - but I have been waiting for someone to raise this question. Since it hasn't been raised (to my knowledge) then I will.

 

How does this discussion fall in line with using binoculars, or a long distance camera lens or even a TV camera to search for a lost ball in a tree (which I believe have all been used) and then after finding a ball also being used to identify the ball as opposed to using some of the technical assistance that has been discussed which is not allowed.

[Sawgrass]

Probably should stay out of the discussion and only read to learn - but I have been waiting for someone to raise this question. Since it hasn't been raised (to my knowledge) then I will.

 

How does this discussion fall in line with using binoculars, or a long distance camera lens or even a TV camera to search for a lost ball in a tree (which I believe have all been used) and then after finding a ball also being used to identify the ball as opposed to using some of the technical assistance that has been discussed which is not allowed.

A player may use glasses and binoculars. A spectator may use anything.

 

14-3/3

 

Eyeglasses and Binoculars

 

Standard eyeglasses and binoculars that have no range-finder attachments are not artificial devices within the meaning of the term in Rule 14-3. However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3.