What is the one rule you wish could be changed

[Vindog]

Just my opinion, but that doesn't better the game. It just dilutes the strategy of course management. Hitting it off the course is worse than, hitting it in a hazard, which is worse than keeping it in play.

 

The areas of the course are important.

 

[Vindog]

Duplicate post

[Vindog]

You mean the post calling everyone's argument lame, and inviting everyone to flame him?

 

That post? I don't recall more than one snarky respoonse, even though that's what the poster was trying to illicit.

[LICC]

If he hit in a hazard I would just be better positioned than him, so advantage me, but I wouldn’t be a stroke ahead like I would if his ball was gone. And I don’t see people using course management to play a hole differently if the trouble spot is OB rather than the exact same area being a pond. In either case if you hit it there your ball is gone and you get penalized. People play away from the trouble the same way.

[LICC]

I didn’t see that one. I’m referring to a post yesterday

[Vindog]

Link it up

[Vindog]

Those players are not taking course management into their game like they should. OB should be avoided more than anything. I know that even if I hit it into a pond, I will be ble to drop "up there somewhere". I know that if I hit it OB I am hosed, and I should pull out another ball.

 

 

[davep043]

I have another question. @LICC wants OB to play the same as penalty areas. You are specifically not allowed to play a shot from OB, because its almost always someone else's property. Should the rules then disallow playing a shot from a penalty area? That would mean the two "places" would have identical requirements, which is what @LICC has been banging on about this whole time. So your ball is in a creekbed, clearly within the bounds of the penalty area, but sitting dry and clear. Yet you MUST take one-stroke relief and play it from outside the Penalty Area. Consistency!

[LICC]

But why should it? Why is it better to have such a harsh penalty that you take away the incentive to try a risk reward shot? Why is it better to have a hole that the penalty takes away options because the only sensible play now is to stay far away from OB? And it’s not bad course management- in either case you have trouble on one side and you either take it in for an advantage on your next shot or you play safely away. Why double up the penalty for one situation but not the other and take the strategy away from the hole? That is not better for the game.

[LICC]

Number 1059

[Vindog]

Failing to account for the most penal shot in golf isn't bad course management?

 

ouch.

[sui generis]

Let's stop.

This derangement has gone on far, far too long.

Let it just continue posting its nonsense to itself.

Let's just stop!

[LICC]

It wouldn’t be the most penal if it was treated the same as a PA. And I didn’t say anything about failing to account. We are comparing the hypothetical of the same hole with OB or a pond in the same place. The player accounts for it in both situations.

[Vindog]

They account for it but in vastly different ways, or at least they should.

 

#5 Poland Spring Golf Course, Poland Maine. Original Arthur Fenn, then re modeled my D. Ross. Short hole, potentially driveable green, but OB all along the right hand side. Wooded but unmarked to the left. I can get it very close and make the hole much easier, however, I know that it is risky, and usually I will club down because if it gets away from me I'll be reloading from the tee. If it was a hazard I might not be so apt to club down becasue I'l be able to drop up there somewhere.

 

Two holes later, I can attempt to shorten the hole up the right hand side. Since it's just a Lateral PA along the right I usually blast away, becasue even from the relief area, I'm only hittiing a 7i in. If it were OB I'd be aiming way to the left, probably trying long iron to the green.

 

It matters.

fd

[LICC]

But why should it matter? How is that better? You basically described a driveable par 4 that can’t be smartly played as a driveable par 4 because of the overly penal rule

[HatsForBats]

As you know one area can try to be be played from while the other you cannot but that is not the point.

 

Assume the very logical penalties are not in place and you and myself are deciding on what penalty or penalties are to be assessed. Your argument is that both balls are in a penalty area and therefore should be penalized the same. My argument is that by having penalties of differing amounts (1-stroke and 2-stroke) the game requires more planning (strategy) and better execution. Those that don't plan and execute deserve to be penalized more heavily. Further, as you are aware, many times out of bounds can be residential areas and further discouraging players from hitting at those areas is a good thing (for the course owners, the golfer, the residents and the game of golf in general). It will not prevent players from ever hitting into those areas but it will reduce the overall occurrences of players hitting into that residential area.

[Vindog]

It's driveability hinges upon your execution off the tee. Otherwise the hole would have no defense. If a player could just get up there and blast away, knowing that a ball can be played from the right, then it would be a glorified par 3. I prefer my driveable par 4s to have high risk associated with the attempt.

 

Understand that players (even myself sometimes) still go for the green, so it doesn't take way the allure of trying to get it there. But it does make you think about it more.

[LICC]

I find this argument to be overblown. If you are on the tee and see houses lining the right side of the fairway, you are going to be inclined to not hit the houses. Having two penalties for your shot that hits the houses instead of one is not going to make a person change his approach to try to avoid hitting the houses.

If you want a hole to have different levels of consequence for different areas that you can hit the ball, then design harder hazards in those areas. Don't rely on inconsistent application of penalties.

[deadsolid...shank]

This seems like such a incorrect statement. Everyone I know factors in the harsher penalty for OB and plans and plays accordingly to avoid the OB.

[LICC]

But it wouldn't have no defense. You would have a penalty. If you were playing someone who hit a great drive and is on the green or near in chipping range, and you sliced one OB, you would be one full stroke behind your opponent with a full shot in to the green if you drop or if you re-teed and played the next shot safe, whereas he is lying 1 and putting or chipping. Under the current rules, you are basically out of the hole after one bad swing.

[LICC]

But they don't factor in the pond lining the entire side of the fairway?

[Vindog]

Yep. plan the hole accordingly. If it was just a hazard there then one could potentially play out of it, negating the risk.

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

Of course they do. But like countless others have said, the lesser penalty of the pond vs that of the OB is the mitigating factor.

But you full well know this.

 

[Vindog]

They should. And they also realize that hitting it into that PA means you can play it from there, or drop it based on from where it crossed the margin.

[LICC]

You are stretching things @davep043 , but I'm glad you made this comment because it raises another issue in favor of my argument.
First, Tufts was very precise and careful with his words. This is no throwaway line. But here is another issue- Rule 19 is one of the few rules that allows a player to change his ball in the middle of playing a hole. What if the player decided that he wanted a different ball than the one he teed off with? According to you, even if he genuinely believes his ball is playable, he can dishonestly say it is unplayable, move it back, and change his ball. But Tufts clearly contemplates that a player should not be declaring a playable ball as unplayable because, as he puts it, "It is, of course, expected that the reader will appreciate it is ... the character of its lie that makes [his ball] 'unplayable.'"
As for your remarks on the other chapters, please feel free to know that you don't have to advise me about reading them as I have already. Nothing in them adds any kind of dilemma or conundrum to what I propose, as a lateral water hazard penalty is already in the rules through the PA rule and treatment of OB the same way would not create any inconsistencies in hierarchy of penalties.

[Shilgy]

He seems to be very selective in what he replies to. Many posts but did not touch this one of yours.

 

At least he is consistent.

[LICC]

And I don't agree with you. People will see a pond or an OB, understand that hitting into either is trouble, evaluate the rest of hole, determine what target they are confident or comfortable with, and play toward it. If anything, forcing someone to be extra conservative because the rule is unduly harsh is a negative for the game.

[LICC]

And if you hit a bad slice or hook, you likely lost substantial distance compared to a good drive, so you now have a longer approach, at likely a poorer angle, and you are a full stroke behind. Seems like disincentive enough.

[davep043]

There are any number of legitimate reasons to deem a ball "unplayable", even though it is possible to strike it with a club. None are dishonest.

And if a player wants to LOSE A STROKE in order to change golf balls, let him. Anywhere on the course, any time. The advantage derived by changing to a different type of ball can't come close to the disadvantage of losing a complete stroke. Its foolish to think that any (sane) player would do that.

And to make the rules consistent, to treat a ball OB the same as a ball in a Penalty Area, you'd need to change the Penalty Area Rules. No matter what changes you make to the OB Rules, you still won't be allowed to play a ball OB. To make the rules the same, your stated ideal, you would need to bar a player from making a stroke at a ball in a Penalty Area. It can be sitting perched up on a tuft of grass in a dry creekbed, straight line to the flag, but the player would be required to take a stroke penalty and drop it. That's simple logic, simple consistency, treat the two (different) areas identically.

[Vindog]

Yet all of that is still better than hitting again from the tee. Seems pretty straightforward.