USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[TerpFangolfer]

The only "controversial" rule change I see - and maybe I just need further clarification of it - is the new drop rule (ie. drop height, 20", 80", etc.).

 

How about the "no standing behind while taking a stance to line up" - since seemingly that is predominately done only on the LPGA tour, will the ladies see that as biased against them?

 

otherwise, agree...most make good sense. Gotta go practice my 1" drops!!

 

That is true. That will certainly effect the LPGA more. You don't see it much on the PGA and in amateur golf as much since us mortals don't play with caddies everyday.

 

So apparently there is already "angry" reaction to this one from the LPGA...specifically Brittany Lincicome, maybe others to follow

[North Butte]

The only "controversial" rule change I see - and maybe I just need further clarification of it - is the new drop rule (ie. drop height, 20", 80", etc.).

 

How about the "no standing behind while taking a stance to line up" - since seemingly that is predominately done only on the LPGA tour, will the ladies see that as biased against them?

 

otherwise, agree...most make good sense. Gotta go practice my 1" drops!!

 

That is true. That will certainly effect the LPGA more. You don't see it much on the PGA and in amateur golf as much since us mortals don't play with caddies everyday.

 

So apparently there is already "angry" reaction to this one from the LPGA...specifically Brittany Lincicome, maybe others to follow

 

What Britt needs is for her caddie to hit bunker shots and tricky pitch shots for her. That would do her more good than the lining-up stuff.

 

I have once in my life, for less than a full round, let a caddie both read putts and line me up for each putt by standing behind me. I can totally see why certain players could benefit. For me, playing on ultra-fast greens on a course I'd ever seen before it was like...well...it was like cheating. I'm not sure I missed a putt inside 10 feet for the 15 or so holes that caddie was lining me up and while a couple of long lag putts weren't the correct pace they were right in the heart of the cup.

 

To me it was so obviously an advantage and so obviously cheating (even if allowed by the Rules) that I've never asked for that help again. Even when I've played very fancy courses where there were caddies who'd have been glad to do it.

 

That same caddie also corrected my alignment a couple times before I hit full shots (albeit not standing directly behind me) and was also given me gentle tempo reminders/cues before each swing. Hell I could probably knock 10 shots off my handicap if I had a professional caddie with local course knowledge lining me up, reminding me to slow down my tempo and reading putts for me every round.

 

But I'd feel like I was cheating.

[Roadking2003]

If rolling the ball in the fairway helps by two stroke if you need to roll the ball in every fairway, your course needs better fairways.

Personally I have never understood the idea of deserving any style of lie after a shot. You may get a perfect lie in the rough-or between trees-and a poor lie in the fairway. And it's how you handle the adversity that defines your game. IMO-not in yours and we are all entitled to one- your idea of golf is done quite well at any driving range or Top Golf. Bad breaks are a part of sports. Let me throw out a question for you. If you hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway but it strikes the edge of a sprinkler head and bounds into deep rough should you be able to place it where you think it should have wound up in the fairway? How about if it bounces out of bounds?

 

I don't need to roll the ball in every fairway. In fact, I don't need to roll it more than once every 100 or 200 holes.

 

I believe we should remove luck from the game where practical. The sprinkler head issue is one that can't be removed. Fortunately, it is an extremely rare event. Your ball probably has a 10,000 times better chance of stopping in a divot than hitting a sprinkler head and bouncing OB.

 

So tell me why moving the ball six inches in the fairway is so bad? The pros would refuse to play on fairways as bad as some public courses. So why should amateurs not get to hit off good turf like the pros do?

[SeaOfGreen10]

You guys really need to stop with the "more enjoyable for everybody" and "more enjoyable for a larger majority of golfers" stuff.

 

It's S&D when you hit a ball off the course because they don't want balls off the course. They don't want them bouncing down roads. They don't want them in people's backyards. They want you to play away from that.

 

OB 10 yards over the green? Better play short of the green.

 

OB 10 feet from the fairway on the left. . .better aim WAY right. I mean aiming so far right, you're bringing the next hole into play.

 

OB both sides of a narrow hole? Better hit your 7 iron off the tee.

 

It's Fundamentals of Course Management 101. I don't play with people who want these things. I don't understand this desire to make playing the game free from unpleasantness.

 

Why not change water hazards to S&D too? If a one stroke penalty qualifies as "free from unpleasantness", then shouldn't we increase the penalty for hitting a shot where you clearly weren't supposed to?

 

And what is Fundamentals of Course Management 101 for avoiding a lost ball?

[Stuart_G]

Why not change water hazards to S&D too? If a one stroke penalty qualifies as "free from unpleasantness", then shouldn't we increase the penalty for hitting a shot where you clearly weren't supposed to?

 

There is nothing in the rules that says you aren't supposed to hit it in the hazard (or "penalty area"). It's a perfectly valid part of the course. The penalty (optional) is for getting out if you are unable or unwilling to continue play from there in the 'normal' fashion (with a stroke), it's not a penalty for going into that area in the first place.

[North Butte]

Stuart implies but doesn't spell out another good point. There are two things implied by staking an area OB. One of the stroke and distance penalty. But the other, just as important, is that you are not allowed to play your ball from outside those stakes.

 

As long as golf courses have been adjacent to non-golf-course properties (i.e. forever) there has been a need to formalize the boundary of the golf course itself. That need would not go away even if USGA/R&A decided that stroke and distance was too hard for the poor, put-upon golfer to endure ;-)

[jslane57]

Stuart implies but doesn't spell out another good point. There are two things implied by staking an area OB. One of the stroke and distance penalty. But the other, just as important, is that you are not allowed to play your ball from outside those stakes.

 

As long as golf courses have been adjacent to non-golf-course properties (i.e. forever) there has been a need to formalize the boundary of the golf course itself. That need would not go away even if USGA/R&A decided that stroke and distance was too hard for the poor, put-upon golfer to endure ;-)

But it does. Not that people could hit from off the course, but that more and more balls will be flying out of bounds. More windows will be broken. More cars will be hit. And why not? What is distance worth? Let me just say, if OB were just a stroke, the whole way one builds a strategy around a golf course would change. And change around the long ball...

[Stuart_G]

Stuart implies but doesn't spell out another good point. There are two things implied by staking an area OB. One of the stroke and distance penalty. But the other, just as important, is that you are not allowed to play your ball from outside those stakes.

 

Actually I did spell it out (about 150 posts ago), as did at least a few other people.

[jslane57]

If it were up to me (thank the Lord that very little is actually up to me!) I'd have OB as double par and you're done for the hole in stroke play, start fresh on the next hole with a new ball. Loss of hole in match play. Even stroke and distance doesn't put enough importance on boundaries IMO. And this would speed up the play as the moment one hits it OB, they're done for that hole. The walk of shame would not be back to the tee, rather past the green to the next tee...

[Sean2]

I see a lot of positive changes. Common sense creeping into the rules of golf. :-)

[b.helts]

If it were up to me (thank the Lord that very little is actually up to me!) I'd have OB as double par and you're done for the hole in stroke play, start fresh on the next hole with a new ball. Loss of hole in match play. Even stroke and distance doesn't put enough importance on boundaries IMO. And this would speed up the play as the moment one hits it OB, they're done for that hole. The walk of shame would not be back to the tee, rather past the green to the next tee...

 

While this is great in theory (not really) it wouldn't make sense in match play. If I have the honor and I hit it OB you win the hole without having to hit a shot on it. Second, if that is what happens and we start walking to the next tee, we are going to run up on the group in front of us and have to wait for them to not only finish the hole, but to tee off and hit their second shots on the next hole. Otherwise we race around them and go in front of them. Either way is awkward at best and would suck.

 

I commend you for thinking outside the box, though. We need more outside the box thinking for things like Pace of Play.

 

I would definitely like to see more stableford being played in the US.

[Shilgy]

The only "controversial" rule change I see - and maybe I just need further clarification of it - is the new drop rule (ie. drop height, 20", 80", etc.).

 

How about the "no standing behind while taking a stance to line up" - since seemingly that is predominately done only on the LPGA tour, will the ladies see that as biased against them?

 

otherwise, agree...most make good sense. Gotta go practice my 1" drops!!

 

That is true. That will certainly effect the LPGA more. You don't see it much on the PGA and in amateur golf as much since us mortals don't play with caddies everyday.

 

So apparently there is already "angry" reaction to this one from the LPGA...specifically Brittany Lincicome, maybe others to follow

I have not seen anything with Lincicome but Ko feels it's no big deal and will be ready if it is instituted. As mentioned in the Lincicome interview it really does not change their alignment. 99.99% of the time the caddie just says OK.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/ko-must-learn-align-herself-park-likes-it

[Hawkeye77]

OB should be played the same as a penalty area--1 stroke and dropped where it crossed.

 

Lost balls should be 1 stroke and dropped at point the ball was last seen. This would significantly speed pace of play and would simplify the rules by effectively treating OB, lateral hazards (penalty areas), and lost balls in the same manner.

 

The counterarguments to these changes are bogus. Legal liability and general decency will still discourage players from taking unsafe lines even without a stroke and distance penalty. Stroke and distance penalties are an enormous obstacle to wider adoption of people playing golf 'by the Rules' because adherance to the current rules is totally impractical and unduly penal.

 

LOL, unduly penal? One stroke? Comical.

 

Nobody, but nobody, is avoiding "playing by the rules" because of one extra stroke.

 

They don't play by the rules because they can't accept they hit bad shots and want every advantage they can get in the fairways, rough and on the greens. They rationalize cheating, again let them. Other people respect the game and the rules, play in competitions, accept bad decisions, bad shots and rub of the green have consequences.

 

This isn't about people who don't want to play by the rules - let them, they aren't playing golf and so what. That's fun for them.

 

It's about the integrity of the game. Plenty of sound reasons for stroke and distance.

 

Waaaaaah, it costs me an extra stroke is not an argument.

 

So in a thread created to discuss proposed rule changes, you are making the argument that discussing a rule someone wants changed is "rationalizing cheating" because they "can't accept" bad shots? Does that mean the USGA falls into this category? Clearly, tapping down spike marks would make things easier, and is simply an attempt at rationalizing the cheaters who already do this. I can't believe so many people support this blatant attack on the integrity of the game.

 

If you believe S&D is appropriate because OB should be punished more than a hazard, fine, that is valid. But to act like the discussion itself isn't even vald, in a thread literally about changing the rules of the game, is as absurd as using an argument that includes "Waaaaah".

 

The argument advanced without any explanation is simply "unduly penal". And yes, without any explanation beyond that it is pure whining.

 

The other is simply an accurate description of what people choosing not to play by the rules do, and again let them, doesn't affect me.

 

Two different issues, you've misinterpreted the post.

[QEight]

If rolling the ball in the fairway helps by two stroke if you need to roll the ball in every fairway, your course needs better fairways.

Personally I have never understood the idea of deserving any style of lie after a shot. You may get a perfect lie in the rough-or between trees-and a poor lie in the fairway. And it's how you handle the adversity that defines your game. IMO-not in yours and we are all entitled to one- your idea of golf is done quite well at any driving range or Top Golf. Bad breaks are a part of sports. Let me throw out a question for you. If you hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway but it strikes the edge of a sprinkler head and bounds into deep rough should you be able to place it where you think it should have wound up in the fairway? How about if it bounces out of bounds?

 

I don't need to roll the ball in every fairway. In fact, I don't need to roll it more than once every 100 or 200 holes.

 

I believe we should remove luck from the game where practical. The sprinkler head issue is one that can't be removed. Fortunately, it is an extremely rare event. Your ball probably has a 10,000 times better chance of stopping in a divot than hitting a sprinkler head and bouncing OB.

 

So tell me why moving the ball six inches in the fairway is so bad? The pros would refuse to play on fairways as bad as some public courses. So why should amateurs not get to hit off good turf like the pros do?

 

There are golf simulators where nature can be turned off.

[arbeck]

I think the OB and Lost Ball rule are pretty easy. Just give the player the option. They can hit a provisional off the tee, or fairway, or wherever they were; or they can drop at the last point the ball was seen with a two stroke penalty. So you hit your drive, you think it's probably ok, but you can't find it in the rough. Your choice is to go back to the tee and hit again for your third shot. Or drop the ball where you last saw it and are sitting there in three. Going back to the tee or where you hit the shot from is probably the better play, because the spot you are dropping is probably worse off (in the rough, near OB) is going to be worse than hitting a good shot from the original location. Pro's and in tournament play won't see a change very often from what currently exists.

 

For the amateurs though, it would be a huge time saving issue. Plus, for a lot of amateurs hitting the second drive after the first one went OB is a recipe to make the second one go OB as well. That is super frustrating.

[Hawkeye77]

I think the OB and Lost Ball rule are pretty easy. Just give the player the option. They can hit a provisional off the tee, or fairway, or wherever they were; or they can drop at the last point the ball was seen with a two stroke penalty. So you hit your drive, you think it's probably ok, but you can't find it in the rough. Your choice is to go back to the tee and hit again for your third shot. Or drop the ball where you last saw it and are sitting there in three. Going back to the tee or where you hit the shot from is probably the better play, because the spot you are dropping is probably worse off (in the rough, near OB) is going to be worse than hitting a good shot from the original location. Pro's and in tournament play won't see a change very often from what currently exists.

 

For the amateurs though, it would be a huge time saving issue. Plus, for a lot of amateurs hitting the second drive after the first one went OB is a recipe to make the second one go OB as well. That is super frustrating.

 

I haven't thought this through (never stops me from posting!) but if the actual result is two strokes, I think that's an interesting take. Rules people may have some ideas about the ends being served, but dropping in proximity to the spot you crossed OB off the tee and hitting 4 from there makes sense (so that means there probably is something I haven't considered). If pace of play is the hypothetical argument that's not much of an issue with your idea. Interesting.

[LexHair]

Really like the 7.4 change about moving a ball while searching. Having to explain that it's ok for me to kick leaves and move the ball when I'm helping another player but it's not ok for me to do that looking for my ball was a bit screwy. I didn't look through the entire thread but a change to the provisional ball rule to allow you to play the provisional when you find the first ball but it's unplayable would be welcome. I'd have liked to see relief from penalty from touching the sand in a bunker on the backswing. I guess there are people talented enough to improve their lie that dynamically, though.

[finleysg]

I know I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, but I like playing the ball down. OB and Lost Ball are harsh, but that's part of playing the ball down, in my mind. I'd hate to see that change in competitive golf. As for casual golf, I don't care how someone else plays, so long as they can move along and are pleasant company.

[Stuart_G]

For the amateurs though, it would be a huge time saving issue. Plus, for a lot of amateurs hitting the second drive after the first one went OB is a recipe to make the second one go OB as well. That is super frustrating.

 

While I agree it can be very frustrating, being able to put a ball in play off the tee is kind of an important part of the game for a legitimate round. Out for fun - sure go a head and drop it where ever you want to. But a fee pass doesn't quite fit into my personal idea of how the game should be played in competition (according to the rules). To me that would be like the rules allowing a max of 2 putts inside say 10 feet from the hole. Or saying for a forced carry over water, if the player fails to make the carry, he has to drop it behind the water with a 1 stroke penalty, but if with a 2 stroke penalty he can drop it on the other side of the water and avoid having to carry the water. It might not be too bad (unrepresentative of the players skill) for better players who are quite likely to get the second tee shot in play, but it can result in a score that's no longer a true representation of the players actual skill level for the a high percentage of players.

 

Despite that, based on some of the comments made by the USGA rep on Morning Drive the other day, it sounded like the USGA and R+A are actually trying hard to do something about the stroke and distance issues. What specific issues, how and in what form they might address them I have no idea.

[Shilgy]

If rolling the ball in the fairway helps by two stroke if you need to roll the ball in every fairway, your course needs better fairways.

Personally I have never understood the idea of deserving any style of lie after a shot. You may get a perfect lie in the rough-or between trees-and a poor lie in the fairway. And it's how you handle the adversity that defines your game. IMO-not in yours and we are all entitled to one- your idea of golf is done quite well at any driving range or Top Golf. Bad breaks are a part of sports. Let me throw out a question for you. If you hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway but it strikes the edge of a sprinkler head and bounds into deep rough should you be able to place it where you think it should have wound up in the fairway? How about if it bounces out of bounds?

 

I don't need to roll the ball in every fairway. In fact, I don't need to roll it more than once every 100 or 200 holes.

 

I believe we should remove luck from the game where practical. The sprinkler head issue is one that can't be removed. Fortunately, it is an extremely rare event. Your ball probably has a 10,000 times better chance of stopping in a divot than hitting a sprinkler head and bouncing OB.

 

So tell me why moving the ball six inches in the fairway is so bad? The pros would refuse to play on fairways as bad as some public courses. So why should amateurs not get to hit off good turf like the pros do?

I can semi understand the divot issue but it is a rare occurence that a ball is in one and the semantics of the rule would be impossible to define imo. But rolling the ball in the fairway? Pros do not have a perfect lie every time in the fairway either. Do you want to see them rolling it in the US Open?

[FairwaysToHeaven]

I think the OB and Lost Ball rule are pretty easy. Just give the player the option. They can hit a provisional off the tee, or fairway, or wherever they were; or they can drop at the last point the ball was seen with a two stroke penalty. So you hit your drive, you think it's probably ok, but you can't find it in the rough. Your choice is to go back to the tee and hit again for your third shot. Or drop the ball where you last saw it and are sitting there in three. Going back to the tee or where you hit the shot from is probably the better play, because the spot you are dropping is probably worse off (in the rough, near OB) is going to be worse than hitting a good shot from the original location. Pro's and in tournament play won't see a change very often from what currently exists.

 

For the amateurs though, it would be a huge time saving issue. Plus, for a lot of amateurs hitting the second drive after the first one went OB is a recipe to make the second one go OB as well. That is super frustrating.

 

 

super frustrating? lol yeah missing 3 ft putts is frustrating but i'm not asking for a rule change to allow gimmies. its would be impossible to write a rule that wasn't completely open to interpretation, abuse, and misuse if you just let golfers drop where they think their ball might be, where you think it ended up, or where you last saw it. chances are its lost cause where you think it might be isn't where it ended up. the lost ball rule is fine and if you're playing a casual round ignoring the rules and not turning in scores for handicaps do what you want. but changing rules to something completely vague and open to interpretation simply because its frustrating to follow them sounds like an entitled attitude.

[tngolf22]

The only "controversial" rule change I see - and maybe I just need further clarification of it - is the new drop rule (ie. drop height, 20", 80", etc.).

 

How about the "no standing behind while taking a stance to line up" - since seemingly that is predominately done only on the LPGA tour, will the ladies see that as biased against them?

 

otherwise, agree...most make good sense. Gotta go practice my 1" drops!!

 

That is true. That will certainly effect the LPGA more. You don't see it much on the PGA and in amateur golf as much since us mortals don't play with caddies everyday.

 

So apparently there is already "angry" reaction to this one from the LPGA...specifically Brittany Lincicome, maybe others to follow

 

What Britt needs is for her caddie to hit bunker shots and tricky pitch shots for her. That would do her more good than the lining-up stuff.

 

I have once in my life, for less than a full round, let a caddie both read putts and line me up for each putt by standing behind me. I can totally see why certain players could benefit. For me, playing on ultra-fast greens on a course I'd ever seen before it was like...well...it was like cheating. I'm not sure I missed a putt inside 10 feet for the 15 or so holes that caddie was lining me up and while a couple of long lag putts weren't the correct pace they were right in the heart of the cup.

 

To me it was so obviously an advantage and so obviously cheating (even if allowed by the Rules) that I've never asked for that help again. Even when I've played very fancy courses where there were caddies who'd have been glad to do it.

 

That same caddie also corrected my alignment a couple times before I hit full shots (albeit not standing directly behind me) and was also given me gentle tempo reminders/cues before each swing. Hell I could probably knock 10 shots off my handicap if I had a professional caddie with local course knowledge lining me up, reminding me to slow down my tempo and reading putts for me every round.

 

But I'd feel like I was cheating.

 

This response is meant to be somewhat humorous, so please take it with a grain of salt:

 

If you're going to play a course you don't normally play which offers a caddie, (such as Pinehurst #2), you'd be an idiot for not using a caddie to read your putts and line you up. Some of these resort courses are so expensive, why not enjoy the experience? Some of these greens are so fast and difficult, I don't see how it could be cheating especially if you haven't played there. If I didn't have a caddie on Pinehurst #2, I wouldn't have finished before dark.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

I've heard rumors that their may be bifurcation of the rules for professional and ams. not relating to equipment but specifically to the rules. thoughts?

 

“We should have our own rule book and distance ourselves from amateur governing bodies.”

DeLaet later added, “Fact is, there’s an old boys club USGA based in New Jersey that have never hit a shot on Tour who make decisions that affect our families.”

 

I get many want certain rule changes, but interpretation of rules can't be left up to players. Rules need to be specific and understood by all. which is exactly why the rule book is the way it is.

 

“It’s still a little bit unclear where you can ground your club in a bunker but you can’t ground it for testing. So if I lean on it, is that considered testing?” asked William McGirt.

[QEight]

I've heard rumors that their may be bifurcation of the rules for professional and ams. not relating to equipment but specifically to the rules. thoughts?

 

“We should have our own rule book and distance ourselves from amateur governing bodies.”

DeLaet later added, “Fact is, there’s an old boys club USGA based in New Jersey that have never hit a shot on Tour who make decisions that affect our families.”

 

DeLaet seems like ok guy, but what especially he is grumpy about? And which rule does not allow him to earn millions for his families?

[arbeck]

While I agree it can be very frustrating, being able to put a ball in play off the tee is kind of an important part of the game for a legitimate round. Out for fun - sure go a head and drop it where ever you want to. But a fee pass doesn't quite fit into my personal idea of how the game should be played in competition (according to the rules). To me that would be like the rules allowing a max of 2 putts inside say 10 feet from the hole. Or saying for a forced carry over water, if the player fails to make the carry, he has to drop it behind the water with a 1 stroke penalty, but if with a 2 stroke penalty he can drop it on the other side of the water and avoid having to carry the water. It might not be too bad (unrepresentative of the players skill) for better players who are quite likely to get the second tee shot in play, but it can result in a score that's no longer a true representation of the players actual skill level for the a high percentage of players.

 

Despite that, based on some of the comments made by the USGA rep on Morning Drive the other day, it sounded like the USGA and R+A are actually trying hard to do something about the stroke and distance issues. What specific issues, how and in what form they might address them I have no idea.

 

I don't think it really will have much impact on scoring. If you're hitting four from the rough after a lost ball, or near out of bounds. You're most likely going to be struggling to make a double bogey. You're still more likely than not to be taking the max score for handicap purposes (especially since that will most likely change when the global handicap rules come out). I think the trade off in pace of play and ease of understanding are an acceptable trade off for a few 8 and 9's turning into 7's and 8's.

[jslane57]

If it were up to me (thank the Lord that very little is actually up to me!) I'd have OB as double par and you're done for the hole in stroke play, start fresh on the next hole with a new ball. Loss of hole in match play. Even stroke and distance doesn't put enough importance on boundaries IMO. And this would speed up the play as the moment one hits it OB, they're done for that hole. The walk of shame would not be back to the tee, rather past the green to the next tee...

 

While this is great in theory (not really) it wouldn't make sense in match play. If I have the honor and I hit it OB you win the hole without having to hit a shot on it. Second, if that is what happens and we start walking to the next tee, we are going to run up on the group in front of us and have to wait for them to not only finish the hole, but to tee off and hit their second shots on the next hole. Otherwise we race around them and go in front of them. Either way is awkward at best and would suck.

 

I commend you for thinking outside the box, though. We need more outside the box thinking for things like Pace of Play.

 

I would definitely like to see more stableford being played in the US.

In match play honors is very important. I'm fine with winning a hole and not hitting if the person with honors hits it OB. And so you play through the group in front. It's all good...

[Stuart_G]

I don't think it really will have much impact on scoring. If you're hitting four from the rough after a lost ball, or near out of bounds. You're most likely going to be struggling to make a double bogey. You're still more likely than not to be taking the max score for handicap purposes (especially since that will most likely change when the global handicap rules come out). I think the trade off in pace of play and ease of understanding are an acceptable trade off for a few 8 and 9's turning into 7's and 8's.

 

When score is (or might be) an issue, sorry but you really can't lean on ESC. That only effects the handicap, not the actual results of a competition. For a casual round being posted, once max is reached the actual rules don't really matter any more.

[arbeck]

super frustrating? lol yeah missing 3 ft putts is frustrating but i'm not asking for a rule change to allow gimmies. its would be impossible to write a rule that wasn't completely open to interpretation, abuse, and misuse if you just let golfers drop where they think their ball might be, where you think it ended up, or where you last saw it. chances are its lost cause where you think it might be isn't where it ended up. the lost ball rule is fine and if you're playing a casual round ignoring the rules and not turning in scores for handicaps do what you want. but changing rules to something completely vague and open to interpretation simply because its frustrating to follow them sounds like an entitled attitude.

 

It's not really super vague. We're not talking about dropping the ball where you think it should be, or you think it ended up, we're dropping at the last place it was seen. So if your ball crosses over into the rough and you can't find it, you are dropping where it went into the rough, not where you think it probably is. This is no harder than figuring out when it last entered a hazard.

 

For good players and in tournaments, there would almost never be a reason the take the drop. Hitting another shot is almost always going to be preferable since your errant shot is going to be out of position by both direction and distance. The only people that can really abuse this are very high handicap golfers who might lose more than one shot in a row from the same place. Even then, I doubt this has that much effect on scoring. Is it perfect? No. But I can't think of a better solution. It will speed up the game a lot, and it will standardize the way a lot of people play already (though I bet most aren't taking the two strokes that I am suggesting).

 

There's a trade off in every rule, and I think the tradeoffs here are good. There's little change for good golfers, no change for great golfers, and it makes playing (but not necessarily scoring) better for bad golfers. It also speeds up the game for everyone.

[b.helts]

If it were up to me (thank the Lord that very little is actually up to me!) I'd have OB as double par and you're done for the hole in stroke play, start fresh on the next hole with a new ball. Loss of hole in match play. Even stroke and distance doesn't put enough importance on boundaries IMO. And this would speed up the play as the moment one hits it OB, they're done for that hole. The walk of shame would not be back to the tee, rather past the green to the next tee...

 

While this is great in theory (not really) it wouldn't make sense in match play. If I have the honor and I hit it OB you win the hole without having to hit a shot on it. Second, if that is what happens and we start walking to the next tee, we are going to run up on the group in front of us and have to wait for them to not only finish the hole, but to tee off and hit their second shots on the next hole. Otherwise we race around them and go in front of them. Either way is awkward at best and would suck.

 

I commend you for thinking outside the box, though. We need more outside the box thinking for things like Pace of Play.

 

I would definitely like to see more stableford being played in the US.

In match play honors is very important. I'm fine with winning a hole and not hitting if the person with honors hits it OB. And so you play through the group in front. It's all good...

 

I, personally don't like being able to win a hole without hitting a shot. But to each their own.

 

However, on the playing through part, if it were that easy I might agree with you. But the fact is, in most instances, there will also be another group in front of the group in front of you. Playing through is just not a reliable option. So what would happen is I'd hit it OB and only be 2 up (;)) You'd have a little momentum from the win and then we'd hit a wall. We'd have to wait for a minimum of 15 minutes and more likely close to 30 minutes or more before we could tee off the next hole. Momentum would be lost, I'd be bored and stiff and my flask may or may not be empty. This scenario is not just some weird outlier, it is what would happen, most of the time.

 

But cheers, I think you have the honor (:

[arbeck]

When score is (or might be) an issue, sorry but you really can't lean on ESC. That only effects the handicap, not the actual results of a competition.

 

In a competition, the right move is always going to be to play a provisional and treat the rule the way it stands now. I can't think of a situation where taking a two stroke penalty and hitting from the last spot the ball was seen when it is either lost or OB would be better than hitting a second shot from where your original was. I don't think you can lean on this rule to improve your scores in a competition.