USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[North Butte]

My score is not a reflection on the difficulty of a course. At least I don't look at it that way... it's a reflection of how many penalty shots I have had to avoid by keeping the ball in play. Most of my lower scores have been from minimizing mistakes that I had full control over, not from how many strokes were added on through lost balls and extra strokes.

 

We have a different point of view, and I can live with that. To me, the "game" as all about shooting the lowest score possible. If a change in the rules has the effect of lowering my score, to me that means it makes the game easier.

 

I'm with you on most matters but side with Imp on this one. Easy or hard course has to do with how easy or hard it is for me to hit good shots that go where I want them to go or with how punishing the course is of bad shots (in terms of lost balls or difficult recoveries). Score is just a way of keeping score.

 

I normally play in a group where anything worse than bogey is 0 points (as I mention frequently). I don't feel the course is any "easier" in that game just because I'm picking up after reach double or ESC max or whatever. Same for the "toss in the fairway and add two strokes" suggested local rule. I'm going to feel like I had a tough day if I hit 3-4 shots OB or lost off the tee, regardless of whether I played a second ball or dropped one in the fairway and added a couple strokes.

[nsxguy]

My score is not a reflection on the difficulty of a course. At least I don't look at it that way... it's a reflection of how many penalty shots I have had to avoid by keeping the ball in play. Most of my lower scores have been from minimizing mistakes that I had full control over, not from how many strokes were added on through lost balls and extra strokes.

 

We have a different point of view, and I can live with that. To me, the "game" as all about shooting the lowest score possible. If a change in the rules has the effect of lowering my score, to me that means it makes the game easier.

 

I'm with you on most matters but side with Imp on this one. Easy or hard course has to do with how easy or hard it is for me to hit good shots that go where I want them to go or with how punishing the course is of bad shots (in terms of lost balls or difficult recoveries). Score is just a way of keeping score.

 

I normally play in a group where anything worse than bogey is 0 points (as I mention frequently). I don't feel the course is any "easier" in that game just because I'm picking up after reach double or ESC max or whatever. Same for the "toss in the fairway and add two strokes" suggested local rule. I'm going to feel like I had a tough day if I hit 3-4 shots OB or lost off the tee, regardless of whether I played a second ball or dropped one in the fairway and added a couple strokes.

 

[Seamus_McDuff]

Of course you can look at it any way you want but

 

the course IS changing.

 

Those areas where once your ball was lost is now just a(nother) "hazard". Due to which your scores will go down and the course will play easier less difficult.

 

Some courses may hesitate to add too many penalty areas fearing that their rating, and more so slope, will be lowered.

[nsxguy]

Of course you can look at it any way you want but

 

the course IS changing.

 

Those areas where once your ball was lost is now just a(nother) "hazard". Due to which your scores will go down and the course will play easier less difficult.

 

Some courses may hesitate to add too many penalty areas fearing that their rating, and more so slope, will be lowered.

 

I suppose that's possible. Guess we'll see in a year or so.

[dhc1]

I expect they will mark such areas as a penalty area. I see these all the time in other countries - not so much in the U.S. though.

 

And, of course, as dave(?) suggested that would make the course easier less difficult to play.

Fixed. It's not going to make it less difficult to play. The challenge still exists to keep it in bounds, findeable, playable, without taking/assessing a penalty. The course has not changed. I will still lose the same amount of balls due to errant shots not going as planned. The only thing that changes is the penalty applied and the time involved. I don't *have to* walk back to the tee, and back up that hill? Nope. *drop* GAME ON!

In my opinion, any time you get to move your ball from deep grass or woods to a spot with a clear swing, it makes the game less difficult. Under existing rules, your next shot was to replay the one you screwed up, with a penalty stroke, or attempt to play it from a very difficult spot. From a spot where a single stroke might not have got you out of trouble.. If these are marked as penalty areas, you get to take the ball out of that difficult spot, with just a single penalty stroke, without the potential to screw up again on the original shot. That makes it less difficult, in my view.

If the course designates the area as a penalty area (vs just OB/Lost ball) than the drop would be in the general area within 2 clubs not a putter of where it cross the boundary under penalty of 1 stroke.

 

I understand that there are some people like yourself that have been used to the game our whole lives, that said, these changes are squarely focused on the pace of play issues plaguing our courses. It's going to take a couple years to get through this and "get it". As mentioned earlier (I think in this thread)... returning to the tee is a huge time-sink on busy courses and IS a cause for backing things up (I've seen it in our 9 hole league where the 1st groups take 2ish hours, while the last groups starting 2 hours later take 3+ hours). While you may think returning to the tee is a defining part of the sport and particular penalties, fact is, it's a "has been" rule. It's one of a handful of rules that worked when fewer people played the game, or on some exclusive non-packed to the brim courses (i.e. greater than, 8 min tee times). When you have separation between groups, going back to the tee is not a big deal, especially if you have a cart and not walking - with little to no impact. When the course is packed with 8 min tee times, one kink in flow, will (and does) back it up. I have empirical evidence, seen it in action, talked to many players in the league about this.

 

This rule (and quite a few others) are designed to fix pace of play issues. They all go hand in hand to modernize pace. Yes, many of us that have just accepted our fates of slow play, in the guise of purity of the rules, are a select few. Most that understand the WHY someone is returning to the tee are usually the 1st to mutter under our breath "there goes this round" or "why is it taking so long?".

 

These rules modernizations explicitly address and seem to be aimed at answering "While we're young".

 

--kC

 

Less dificult to play - scores will be lower.

 

Old Rule - stroke and distance

 

New Rule - same as a lateral hazard.

 

If you don't see the difference between a 1 stroke penalty and a drop from a penalty area where your ball would have been lost but now is dropped within 2 clubs lengths as if it was a lateral water hazard,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, vs. going back to the tee and hitting 3, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

dave's point (and mine), about the course being "less difficult", simply means your scores, more likely than not, will be lower under this new rule than they would have been under the soon-to-be old stroke and distance for a lost ball.

 

I don't think this is true. The penalty is two strokes, not one. Theoretically, one is better off because the fourth shot is played from the fairway but if the original shot was more crooked than long, it may be better to hit lying two from the tee.

[davep043]

 

Old Rule - stroke and distance

 

New Rule - same as a lateral hazard.

 

If you don't see the difference between a 1 stroke penalty and a drop from a penalty area where your ball would have been lost but now is dropped within 2 clubs lengths as if it was a lateral water hazard,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, vs. going back to the tee and hitting 3, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

dave's point (and mine), about the course being "less difficult", simply means your scores, more likely than not, will be lower under this new rule than they would have been under the soon-to-be old stroke and distance for a lost ball.

 

I don't think this is true. The penalty is two strokes, not one. Theoretically, one is better off because the fourth shot is played from the fairway but if the original shot was more crooked than long, it may be better to hit lying two from the tee.

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

[Deceptively Short]

Large areas of lateral hazards are not particularly common on older UK courses but they are prevalent on newer continental courses e.g. in Spain and Portugal. Courses there often have large scrub areas or ravines which they have typically marked with red stakes, I assume incorrectly, as ones ball is not off the property but is nigh on irretrievable - they contain no water but they are marked thus to speed up play.

I assume they would be marked as penalty areas in future but I guess they could be marked as OB now as the slow play issue is now avoidable with the local rule?

[Roadking2003]

I don't think this is true. The penalty is two strokes, not one. Theoretically, one is better off because the fourth shot is played from the fairway but if the original shot was more crooked than long, it may be better to hit lying two from the tee.

 

Correct.

 

And the new rule MIGHT be better for the golfer, but it also MIGHT NOT be better.

[Newby]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

[Roadking2003]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

I was not aware that " a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards", but I also don't know what you mean by "large proportion".

 

I don't think I've played with a group that treats OB and a lost ball as a lateral hazard.

[davep043]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

It'll make a difference for those of us who actually do play in accordance with the rules now.

[North Butte]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

I was not aware that " a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards", but I also don't know what you mean by "large proportion".

 

I don't think I've played with a group that treats OB and a lost ball as a lateral hazard.

 

An awful lot of golfers on any random Saturday are dropping "near where it went out" any time they can't get to the ball and hit it. Lost, OB, in a hazard, whatever. And they typically add one stroke, drop it in an advantageous spot and go on.

 

But that's not really "treating it as a lateral hazard". It's just adding one stroke and giving yourself a shot at the green. Best not to dress it up as more than it is, it's just half-assed making up the Rules as suits yourself.

[Roadking2003]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

I was not aware that " a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards", but I also don't know what you mean by "large proportion".

 

I don't think I've played with a group that treats OB and a lost ball as a lateral hazard.

 

An awful lot of golfers on any random Saturday are dropping "near where it went out" any time they can't get to the ball and hit it. Lost, OB, in a hazard, whatever. And they typically add one stroke, drop it in an advantageous spot and go on.

 

But that's not really "treating it as a lateral hazard". It's just adding one stroke and giving yourself a shot at the green. Best not to dress it up as more than it is, it's just half-assed making up the Rules as suits yourself.

 

I agree. A much better way to "break the rules" would be to add TWO strokes.

[North Butte]

I was in Myrtle Beach years ago and as a single got paired up with a couple of 60-something gents who had a little money game going. It took me a few WTF??? moments to figure out, they were dropping out of laterals, OB, you name it and adding ZERO strokes. It was one of those typical water hazard choked beach/residential courses and they must have lost more than a dozen balls between them but kept halving holes with "pars" and "bogies".

 

Guess they had their deal and they were sticking to it but Dang!

[Newby]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

I was not aware that " a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards", but I also don't know what you mean by "large proportion".

 

I don't think I've played with a group that treats OB and a lost ball as a lateral hazard.

 

According to my Course Rating colleagues from the USGA, one of their big problems is courses introducing red 'lateral hazard' for areas, after the formal assessment, that simply do not meet the criteria for a water hazard.

[DaveLeeNC]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

Many US players will not go back to the tee under some circumstances. But I have never played with someone who treated OB (or a lost ball) as a lateral hazard. "Most likely score" is the common choice in my experience among players who post scores.

 

dave

[Sean2]

I was in Myrtle Beach years ago and as a single got paired up with a couple of 60-something gents who had a little money game going. It took me a few WTF??? moments to figure out, they were dropping out of laterals, OB, you name it and adding ZERO strokes. It was one of those typical water hazard choked beach/residential courses and they must have lost more than a dozen balls between them but kept halving holes with "pars" and "bogies".

 

Guess they had their deal and they were sticking to it but Dang!

 

Yeah, but they can tall all their friends they shot in the 70s. :-)

[Sawgrass]

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

Given that (seemingly) a large proportion of US players treat these areas a lateral hazards (and post the scores), is it going to make a big difference? :dntknw:

 

Many US players will not go back to the tee under some circumstances. But I have never played with someone who treated OB (or a lost ball) as a lateral hazard. "Most likely score" is the common choice in my experience among players who post scores.

 

dave

I'd like to play with your group, Dave. And I'm not only saying that because you apparently play at Pinehurst, the place of my most favorite golf vacation (2, 4, and 8 thankyouverymuch).

 

Don't get me wrong, I would say that just because you seem to play Pinehurst, but I don't have to.

[dhc1]

 

Old Rule - stroke and distance

 

New Rule - same as a lateral hazard.

 

If you don't see the difference between a 1 stroke penalty and a drop from a penalty area where your ball would have been lost but now is dropped within 2 clubs lengths as if it was a lateral water hazard,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, vs. going back to the tee and hitting 3, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

dave's point (and mine), about the course being "less difficult", simply means your scores, more likely than not, will be lower under this new rule than they would have been under the soon-to-be old stroke and distance for a lost ball.

 

I don't think this is true. The penalty is two strokes, not one. Theoretically, one is better off because the fourth shot is played from the fairway but if the original shot was more crooked than long, it may be better to hit lying two from the tee.

Just to be clear, we were comparing the old rules, in which a ball in the woods or long grass would be lost, to the new rules, in which those same woods could be classified as a penalty area. Under the old rules, you had to hit your 3rd shot from the original spot. Under the new rules, you could be hitting your 3rd shot from where the ball entered the penalty area, perhaps a couple hundred yards closer to the hole. That bit of discussion wasn't really about the new "local rule" allowing an alternative to hitting your 3rd from the original spot when your ball is lost of OB.

 

Thanks for the clarification. My guess would be that the course rating/slope would have to also be adjusted downward to offset the optionality benefit provided as the prnalty area isn’t as penal as a typical hazard given the potential to find and play the ball without penalty.

[Sawgrass]

IMO, losing a ball in a water hazard typically costs 1 1/2 strokes, where a lost ball/OB ball typically costs 2 strokes. Not that big a deal for most courses in terms of rating impact if one switches from OB to LWH.

[nsxguy]

I don't think this is true. The penalty is two strokes, not one. Theoretically, one is better off because the fourth shot is played from the fairway but if the original shot was more crooked than long, it may be better to hit lying two from the tee.

 

Correct.

 

And the new rule MIGHT be better for the golfer, but it also MIGHT NOT be better.

 

The new (penalty area) rule is obviously better (for the golfer).

 

Not sure what you're referring to as "correct". As dave explained it's one stroke, not 2 (penalty area that is).

 

But if you're referring to the "might or might not be better off", I assume the player will have the same options available to him with the penalty area and will be allowed to take his 1 shot penalty and go back to where he hit the previous shot from if that's more advantageous.

 

So he still will be better off with the new rule than the old.

[Newby]

Of course you can look at it any way you want but

 

the course IS changing.

 

Those areas where once your ball was lost is now just a(nother) "hazard". Due to which your scores will go down and the course will play easier less difficult.

 

Some courses may hesitate to add too many penalty areas fearing that their rating, and more so slope, will be lowered.

Areas of 'extreme' rough' (probably to be treated as penalty areas) are rated virtually the same as water hazards. I don't see any cause for scratch or bogey ratings to change.

[Seamus_McDuff]

Of course you can look at it any way you want but

 

the course IS changing.

 

Those areas where once your ball was lost is now just a(nother) "hazard". Due to which your scores will go down and the course will play easier less difficult.

 

Some courses may hesitate to add too many penalty areas fearing that their rating, and more so slope, will be lowered.

Areas of 'extreme' rough' (probably to be treated as penalty areas) are rated virtually the same as water hazards. I don't see any cause for scratch or bogey ratings to change.

 

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

[Newby]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

[Roadking2003]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

 

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

[DaveLeeNC]

I'd like to play with your group, Dave. And I'm not only saying that because you apparently play at Pinehurst, the place of my most favorite golf vacation (2, 4, and 8 thankyouverymuch).

 

Don't get me wrong, I would say that just because you seem to play Pinehurst, but I don't have to.

 

SG - if you ever get down here, do let me know.

 

dave

[HitEmTrue]

I’d agree if extreme rough were the only areas eligible to be changed.

 

Hmm. What other areas do you think clubs will include?

 

The wooded areas...which may have no grass at all.

 

 

[Newby]

 

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

[DaveLeeNC]

Off topic question; do you have access to (or know how to obtain) slope rating details for specific courses?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/

 

I am not sure what the question was here, exactly. But if it was to get the (for example) rating/slope of each hole for each tee, I was unable to do that. But maybe that is up to the specific local organization that does the actual rating work.

 

dave

[Newby]

Did you click on the Course Name?

 

This is what I got for the Mustang at Lely, Naples, FL

 

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=43730