Rule question on lost ball

[RCGA]

37 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Gee, your course management isn't so good on this hole. Perhaps you should have taken the 1 iron off the tee. But, no, you should blame the stoopid Rules instead. 🙄

 

I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. You've never pulled a tee shot? Sorry for not knowing there was water left? 

 

[Colin L]

12 hours ago, iutodd said:

...... I just feel like the USGA rules are for a certain kind of golf.  I'm sure a lot of golfers play that way.  I don't and I'm sure a lot of other golfers don't.  Why not create a set of rules that is closer to where golfers actually are?

Why not, indeed?  Feel free to go ahead and maybe post them here if you're brave enough.  😉 

[dmecca2]

I'm a firm believer in the "If my ball is either in the penalty area or sitting in an area that the ball should not be lost, and I don't find my ball in the only area where the ball may outside the hazard, THEN that satisfies the 95% certain clause."

 

If there's a chance that ball ricocheted off the tree into some bushes or tall grass, then no dice. Tee it up and try again.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

It's a horrible rule.  

 

For example: Blind tee shot with water up there on the left. You hit your tee shot slightly left and can't find the ball walking up to it. You didn't see it go in the hazard (it's a blind tee shot after all), and you can't find it in the rough. 

 

Is it in the water? In the rough? Took a bad bounce and is somewhere completely different? Picked up by another group? 

 

My suggestion: Lost ball is treated the same way as a lateral hazard. 

 

"Hey guys, it's gotta be either in the hazard or somewhere in the rough and we can't see it. I'll drop one and hit my 3rd."  

 

So just where do you drop the ball? Where you think it crossed the red margin, where you think it crossed the edge of the rough or the more advantageous of them?  Or simply where you fancy?

[Newby]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:11 AM, iknowbagu said:

in November, the governing bodies tend cut us some slack and that would be a hazard. 

Which governing bodies are those?

Or is that just an alternative  description for your club or group? 😉

[nsxguy]

16 hours ago, iutodd said:

 

I could argue that this is already what the USGA does.  They have the official rules and then golfers get out to the course and they do what they do based on their knowledge of the rules and what they agree upon as a group.  Which means there is a difference from where most golfers are and where the USGA is at - in the article I posted from the USGA above they openly admit that most golfers, when the ball is "lost" just agree with one another that the ball was lost around this spot and they drop there for a one stroke penalty.

 

And then they spend the next 1000 words trying to explain why that is bad and they don't really have a strong argument for it.  The strongest argument is probably the idea that @Newby mentions: the lack of a fixed reference point. 

 

But as I keep mentioning - the newish local rule (as I understand things) allows the golfer to create that reference point.  So it's in the rules now that players can do this - they just need to take the next logical step and allow for a drop at that spot.

 

I just feel like the USGA rules are for a certain kind of golf.  I'm sure a lot of golfers play that way.  I don't and I'm sure a lot of other golfers don't.  Why not create a set of rules that is closer to where golfers actually are?

 

But that's exactly what they ARE doing in this case.

 

Acknowledging that something happens (most casual golfers do whatever they want) and making rules for the game are 2 different things.

 

The USGA is also tasked with "growing the game". The #1 reason for so many golfers NOT playing more often is the time it takes to play. It is for this explicit reason MLR E-5 was created. You yourself point to the article explaining this very thing.

 

It saves time. And likely without unduly affecting one's handicap, simply because once someone uses E-5 that hole likely will be over net double bogey and therefore would be disregarded for handicap purposes.

 

But it seems your major objection isn't the rule but the "additional" stroke. And actually, you DO bring up an interesting point; that of dropping where you believe the ball to have been lost, for 1 stroke, instead of taking it to (usually) the fairway at a cost of 2 strokes.

 

Of course, I'm sure you recognize there are place where you won't be very happy dropping for a single stroke; such as in a thicket of trees where it might take you 3 shots just to get back to the fairway. Or waist high reeds where it may take the same 3 strokes to get back in play.

 

But I suppose an optional E-5 drop mightn't be the worst idea for non-high level play.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by nsxguy

[iknowbagu]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Which governing bodies are those?

Or is that just an alternative  description for your club or group? 😉

 

My regular groups. So slap some air quotes around governing bodies. Like I said, April through October we'll follow the USGA to the letter (well, most of us, anyway). Before and after that, though, we're just enjoying the day out. 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

But that's exactly what they ARE doing in this case.

 

Acknowledging that something happens (most casual golfers do whatever they want) and making rules for the game are 2 different things.

 

The USGA is also tasked with "growing the game". The #1 reason for so many golfers NOT playing more often is the time it takes to play. It is for this explicit reason MLR E-5 was created. You yourself point to the article explaining this very thing.

 

It saves time. And likely without unduly affecting one's handicap, simply because once someone uses E-5 that hole likely will be over net double bogey and therefore would be disregarded for handicap purposes.

 

But it seems your major objection isn't the rule but the "additional" stroke. And actually, you DO bring up an interesting point; that of dropping where you believe the ball to have been lost, for 1 stroke, instead of taking it to (usually) the fairway at a cost of 2 strokes.

 

Of course, I'm sure you recognize there are place where you won't be very happy dropping for a single stroke; such as in a thicket of trees where it might take you 3 shots just to get back to the fairway. Or waist high reeds where it may take the same 3 strokes to get back in play.

 

But I suppose an optional E-5 drop mightn't be the worst idea for non-high level play.

 

 

 

 

I agree that the whole issue with following E-5 is the extra stroke. But if everyone follows it, what does it matter?  Pure ego?

[Newby]

57 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I agree that the whole issue with following E-5 is the extra stroke. But if everyone follows it, what does it matter?  Pure ego?

Not applying the extra stroke would contrast with taking lateral relief from a PA but with the possibly great advantage of moving the ball some distance forward and on to the fairway.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

I agree that the whole issue with following E-5 is the extra stroke. But if everyone follows it, what does it matter?  Pure ego?

 

Using E-5 as it stands, I don't see it as an extra stroke.

 

After all, if the player went back to the tee, he/she would be hitting 3 and if the player got it to (roughly) the same place but IN the fairway, the player would be lying 3 anyway.

 

I was just suggesting that @iutodd had an interesting point; if there were 2 options to E-5; adding 2 to go to the fairway or adding just 1 dropping where the ball is presumed to be lost (or OB).

 

 

[Newby]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I was just suggesting that @iutodd had an interesting point; if there were 2 options to E-5; adding 2 to go to the fairway or adding just 1 dropping where the ball is presumed to be lost (or OB).

 

 

But there is still an advantage over lateral relief.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, Newby said:

But there is still an advantage over lateral relief.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point.

[rogolf]

I wasn’t suggesting an alternate to E-5, I think it is just fine the way it is, but was offering a reason why some people don’t like it or use it. 

[Newby]

31 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Please ignore. I was picturing a very unusual/specific case but I'm not so sure it is relevant.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Newby

[rogolf]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Using E-5 as it stands, I don't see it as an extra stroke.

 

After all, if the player went back to the tee, he/she would be hitting 3 and if the player got it to (roughly) the same place but IN the fairway, the player would be lying 3 anyway.

 

I was just suggesting that @iutodd had an interesting point; if there were 2 options to E-5; adding 2 to go to the fairway or adding just 1 dropping where the ball is presumed to be lost (or OB).

 

 

I say "extra stroke" to refer to the one more stroke with E-5 than those players are taking now (and have been for years) with their improper relief.