2019 OB & Lost Ball Rule

[davep043]

I think step B of E-5 is to find that point in the fairway, no?

 

I believe a teeing ground on the hole being played also counts as "fairway" for finding that point. Also, if there is short mown grass (a walking path) from the tee-boxes to the fairway.

 

That does not mean you'd have to drop on the teeing ground.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (as if I need to ask!) :)

I read this too. Keeping that in mind, the Fairway Reference Point can be much further from the hole than the "Ball Reference Point:, if there is no fairway available. The Relief Zone has to be between the two lines (plus 2 clublengths), and no closer to the hole than the Ball Reference point. Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

[Sawgrass]

 

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

[Mr. Bean]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

 

I agree with Sawgrass, FRP cannot possibly be closer to the hole than the BRP. Otherwise the entire LR would make no sense at all.

 

Also I want to repeat myself: This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

[Halebopp]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

 

I understood Dave's point as a situation in which there is no fairway equidistant from the hole as the point where the ball is estimated to be lost or crossed OB. Then the FRP would need to be further away. Is a player allowed to drop forward of that FRP?

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Also I want to repeat myself: This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

 

And yet those are the only golfers for whom it's recommended. (My Committee voted last night to exclude the LR from all of our events, no matter how minor.)

[Mr. Bean]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

 

I understood Dave's point as a situation in which there is no fairway equidistant from the hole as the point where the ball is estimated to be lost or crossed OB. Then the FRP would need to be further away. Is a player allowed to drop forward of that FRP?

 

No.

[Sawgrass]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

 

I understood Dave's point as a situation in which there is no fairway equidistant from the hole as the point where the ball is estimated to be lost or crossed OB. Then the FRP would need to be further away. Is a player allowed to drop forward of that FRP?

In that situation, what does "outside the line" mean to you? To me, it means no closer to the hole.

[Halebopp]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

 

I understood Dave's point as a situation in which there is no fairway equidistant from the hole as the point where the ball is estimated to be lost or crossed OB. Then the FRP would need to be further away. Is a player allowed to drop forward of that FRP?

In that situation, what does "outside the line" mean to you? To me, it means no closer to the hole.

 

I have spent next to no time studying the rule beyond understanding the basics but I guess now is a good time to look into it.

 

The limitations regarding the area in the model local rule are below. The FRP doesn't seem to limit the area "depth wise", only its width. The line is from the hole through the FRP. That line doesn't start from the FRP. Thus the outside limitation is only about the width of the area.

 

Edit: In other words, only the BRP is limiting the distance from the hole for the whole area.

 

Size of Relief Area Based on Reference Points:

Anywhere between:

• A line from the hole through the ball reference point (and within two club-lengths to the outside of that line), and
  
• A line from the hole through the fairway reference point (and within two club-lengths to the fairway side of that line).
  

But with these limits:

Limits on Location of Relief Area:

• Must be in the general area, and
  
• Must not be nearer the hole than the ball reference point.
  

[davep043]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

[Newby]

This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

 

A very elitist comment. Are you saying you are more intelligent or cleverer than most of the worlds golfers? A bold claim indeed.

[HitEmTrue]

"For purpose of this Local Rule". Ahhhh, didn't see that. I hate "exceptions". :lol:

 

Then again, if back on his own teeing ground I expect he'd just take S&D so as to be able to tee it up on the teeing ground, yes ?

 

As SniperBBB said, could be ladies/junior tees that is much further up. It merely creates a reference point for the drop. The ideal drop location could be in the rough, near the other reference point.

[SNIPERBBB]

This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

 

A very elitist comment. Are you saying you are more intelligent or cleverer than most of the worlds golfers? A bold claim indeed.

 

How hard is it, unless you don't believe if GPS or rangefinders, to measure from where your ball then measure the FRP you wish to use to see if your closer or not.

[DaveLeeNC]

This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

 

A very elitist comment. Are you saying you are more intelligent or cleverer than most of the worlds golfers? A bold claim indeed.

 

While I don't agree with the conclusion (too complicated for ..., so should not be implemented), the issue in my mind is that it is complicated enough that the typical golfer is not going to pay enough attention to implement it properly in all cases (no matter how smart they are). This one will probably be screwed up more than is typical for a given ROG/LR.

 

dave

[HitEmTrue]

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

 

Perhaps a more difficult to grasp at first, that drawing captures the mechanics of defining the relief area better than the ones on the USGA site.

[davep043]

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

 

Perhaps a more difficult to grasp at first, that drawing captures the mechanics of defining the relief area better than the ones on the USGA site.

The USGA drawings just don't address a situation where there's no FRP at the same distance from the hole as the BRP. Its such a rare occurrence, I can understand why they chose not to.

[HitEmTrue]

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

 

Perhaps a more difficult to grasp at first, that drawing captures the mechanics of defining the relief area better than the ones on the USGA site.

The USGA drawings just don't address a situation where there's no FRP at the same distance from the hole as the BRP. Its such a rare occurrence, I can understand why they chose not to.

 

But it may not be that rare. A water hazard...er...penalty area...could cause the situation to happen.

[Sawgrass]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

That's a super illustration, thanks. I certainly agree with your conclusion there. I had feared that you were saying that, if the FRP was equidistant from the hole as the BRP, the two club-length latitude from the FRP could still allow you to extend up to two club-lengths closer to the hole than the FRP. I hope we both agree that is not legal. That is, in practice, the ball may in no circumstances be dropped closer to the hole than the BRP.

[davep043]

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

That's a super illustration, thanks. I certainly agree with your conclusion there. I had feared that you were saying that, if the FRP was equidistant from the hole as the BRP, the two club-length latitude from the FRP could still allow you to extend up to two club-lengths closer to the hole than the FRP. I hope we both agree that is not legal. That is, in practice, the ball may in no circumstances be dropped closer to the hole than the BRP.

Agreed, it is very clear in the rule that you cannot drop any closer to the hole than the BRP. What I had to draw up to understand was the situation where the FRP was a long ways further from the hole than the BRP. If you take it in steps, first establish the reference points, then the reference line(s), and only THEN determine the area that is both between the lines and far enough away from the hole, you get to where I ended up.

[Mr. Bean]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

 

If there is no fairway how can there be a FRP..?

 

And if there IS a fairway the picture shows an incorrect FRP.

[Mr. Bean]

This Local Rule is way too difficult to be handled by everyday golfers...

 

A very elitist comment. Are you saying you are more intelligent or cleverer than most of the worlds golfers? A bold claim indeed.

 

Maybe not more intelligent but far more familiar with the Rules and also with what are the difficulties in the Rules of an everyday golfer to master. That is based on years of refereeing and educating the Rules to those everyday golfers.

 

Nothing bold in that claim, IMO.

[Halebopp]

If there is no fairway how can there be a FRP..?

 

And if there IS a fairway the picture shows an incorrect FRP.

 

It's teeing ground, which usually are cut to fairway length or less.

 

For purposes of this Local Rule, "fairway" means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less.

[davep043]

Based on this, it seems to me that the relief area can extend closer to the hole than the Fairway Reference Point, but it can't be any closer than the Ball Reference Point.

 

Dave, I wish I could see in my mind what you're talking about, I don't think it's likely to be true. The FRP is equidistant to the hole as the BRP, or possibly further away than the BRP. While the limits on the relief area say "must not be nearer the hole than the BRP" (supporting your suggestion) the problem with that is that the two club-lengths are required to be "outside" or "to the fairway side" of the reference lines. That "outside" seems to suggest a 90* angle away from the FRP, which in my mind can not be closer to the hole than the BRP -- but please tell me if you disagree about that. If we're in agremeent about that, the only loop hole is whether you need 90* to be "to the fairway side" of the reference line. All the illustrations in E-5 show a 90*, though I acknowledge that that may not in itself be definitive. (In Diagram 1, the two club lengths off both lines "curve" to stay equidistant from the hole. In Diagram 3, the club lengths off the FRP stay at 90* off the line too, when they clearly could have slid forward toward the hole if that was the intention)

I hope the following sketch is clear:

 

 

 

This is a par 3, with no fairway. I've shown a FRP at the nearest teeing ground, which is much further from the hole than the BRP. I drew a reference line from the hole through the FRP, and then a proposed relief area that is between the two reference lines and no closer than the BRP. I believe this follows each of the requirements.

 

If there is no fairway how can there be a FRP..?

 

And if there IS a fairway the picture shows an incorrect FRP.

If a ball is estimated to be lost on the course or last crossed the edge of the courseboundary short of the fairway, the fairway reference point may be a grass path or a teeing ground for the hole being played cut to fairway height or less.

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

[Mr. Bean]

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

 

So this hole has no apron and no fairway of any kind..? That is, NO General Area but the teeing ground..?

 

That would be amazing...

[Mr. Bean]

 

It's teeing ground, which usually are cut to fairway length or less.

 

Not in our country, Halebopp... at least not usually... and definitively NOT less !

[Halebopp]

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

 

So this hole has no apron and no fairway of any kind..? That is, NO General Area but the teeing ground..?

 

That would be amazing...

 

We can probably rule out the apron in most cases:

 

Fairway Reference Point: The point of fairway of the hole being played that is nearest to the ball reference point, but is not nearer the hole than the ball reference point.

[davep043]

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

 

So this hole has no apron and no fairway of any kind..? That is, NO General Area but the teeing ground..?

 

That would be amazing...

We find it amazing as well, but the only thing cut to fairway height is the 4 feet or so of green surround. The rest is rough, or worse. If I was smarter, I could find a way to link the location through Google Earth, but I'm lacking in that skill.

[Mr. Bean]

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

 

So this hole has no apron and no fairway of any kind..? That is, NO General Area but the teeing ground..?

 

That would be amazing...

We find it amazing as well, but the only thing cut to fairway height is the 4 feet or so of green surround. The rest is rough, or worse. If I was smarter, I could find a way to link the location through Google Earth, but I'm lacking in that skill.

 

No need for that, I believe you.

 

Then again, isn't that a situation where you take your medicine and re-tee..?

[jmkenn0]

I'd like to get some feed back on best way to adopt this new local rule along with the other new local rule which is the Expanded Use of Red-Marked Penalty Areas.

 

If many clubs are adopting the local stroke and distance for pace of play reasons (handles OB and Loss of ball) - How much should the expanded use of Red-Marked Penalty areas local rule be adopted.

 

Background - picture a wide open links style course with many high fescue areas. For pace of play reasons, we are considered using both of these new rules available to us, but not to the point that it drastically makes our challenging course significantly easier.

 

If we adopt Stroke and Distance rule, would adding Red Marked Penalty areas, make things too easy? Just using Stroke and Distance, a player would be hitting his 4th shot from the fairway if he lost his ball in high fescue. If it were red staked, they would be hitting 3rd shot from the rough.

 

Both of these should help with pace of play (not going back to re-tee or hit provisional) - and of course, people will still search for the ball in the fescue to play it first. Perhaps people would give up a little bit earlier on search if it were red staked and it was only 1 stroke penalty? I don't know. I am just trying to get a feel of which rule is going to be more helpful or if there are other considerations I am missing.

 

I'd say yes, because most likely, your third shot, even from the rough, is going to end up closer to the hole, and probably in a better position, than where you drop your ball in the alt OB rule, unless you have some really gnarly rough?

[davep043]

The FRP I've shown is the nearest area with grass cut to fairway height or less, i.e. the forward tee. I believe that's consistent with the wording in the rule I've quoted.

 

So this hole has no apron and no fairway of any kind..? That is, NO General Area but the teeing ground..?

 

That would be amazing...

We find it amazing as well, but the only thing cut to fairway height is the 4 feet or so of green surround. The rest is rough, or worse. If I was smarter, I could find a way to link the location through Google Earth, but I'm lacking in that skill.

 

No need for that, I believe you.

 

Then again, isn't that a situation where you take your medicine and re-tee..?

I certainly would, and would suggest it to anyone who hits a ball in that general area. However, there are a couple of trees near where I showed the BRP, and some severe contours, and the cart path, so its possible for a ball that appears to be clearly in play to end up OB.

 

But no matter what the individual hole looks like, there are other holes around the world where its possible to lose a ball, or have it go OB, and not have any fairway at the same distance from the hole as the BRP. The Rules apparently recognize this, and allow a FRP that's on a mowed path, or on the tee of the hole being played. I shared my drawing to show my interpretation of the Relief Area if this were to happen. I had done particular drawing that to discuss it with other members at my club, and it was a lot easier to share that one than to draw up a more generic diagram.

[Halebopp]

I'd like to get some feed back on best way to adopt this new local rule along with the other new local rule which is the Expanded Use of Red-Marked Penalty Areas.

 

If many clubs are adopting the local stroke and distance for pace of play reasons (handles OB and Loss of ball) - How much should the expanded use of Red-Marked Penalty areas local rule be adopted.

 

Background - picture a wide open links style course with many high fescue areas. For pace of play reasons, we are considered using both of these new rules available to us, but not to the point that it drastically makes our challenging course significantly easier.

 

If we adopt Stroke and Distance rule, would adding Red Marked Penalty areas, make things too easy? Just using Stroke and Distance, a player would be hitting his 4th shot from the fairway if he lost his ball in high fescue. If it were red staked, they would be hitting 3rd shot from the rough.

 

Both of these should help with pace of play (not going back to re-tee or hit provisional) - and of course, people will still search for the ball in the fescue to play it first. Perhaps people would give up a little bit earlier on search if it were red staked and it was only 1 stroke penalty? I don't know. I am just trying to get a feel of which rule is going to be more helpful or if there are other considerations I am missing.

 

Please read through this with regards to the penalty areas. The pace of play can suffer from such penalty areas if balls are found unplayable in them, the ball could've flown 200 yards over the fescue penalty area and you need to go back to drop where it last crossed the margin, also, you can't play provisional balls if you know the ball is in the penalty area but not sure whether you can find it or not and know the walk back would be a long one.

 

https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/rules/committee-procedures/section-2#2c_1