Anyone else think that hitting it OB or lost balls is too penalizing?

[Augster]

1 hour ago, third-times-a-charm said:

Golf has lots of really really stupid and convoluted rules only senile old men would enjoy that should just be ignored by 99% of golfers, but this is not one of them.

 

The only commentary I have is that 2 strokes for OB and 1 for a hazard is pretty stupid. They should both just be 1 stroke and if you can hit an OB shot (like a clean backyard lie in a 'house yard' as used in the OP example) you should hit it without penalty like a hazard (if the homeowner obliges). And none of this should be local or situational.

 

 

OB is only a 1 stroke penalty. 
 

They are both only 1 stroke, so you’ve already gotten your wish. The ruling bodies work fast, it seems. 🙂

[EdY]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Is it just me, or have I read this same discussion at least 3 times a year for the last 5 years?

Beat me to it. 

[ChaosTheory]

I really don't get wound up about rules I don't like or the somewhat opposing position of defending the status quo to the death.  Tell me the rules, I'll play by them.

 

I'd actually be okay with the original rule(s) as I understand them/it:  Play match play and once your ball is in play, you can't touch until it is in the hole.  Period, end of the rules.   If you hit into a bad enough situation, too bad, you're out of the hole, move on.

 

But I am interested, for those who are the staunchest defenders of the status quo, are there any rules of which you could support changes?  If not, is it because none of them can be improved upon?  Or it's too much trouble when a rule is changed?  Love of tradition and continuity? Or some other reason?

[bluedot]

3 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

 

Somewhat just semantics, but I wouldn't say I'm advocating it.  I said I could support it, and that's the best description of how I feel about it.  It could be a "white hazard" with its own specific options, I suppose.  The only option not available versus the red hazard would be play it as it lies.  I would not be shocked if something like this comes about at some point.

It already has come about, at least for casual play and as a local rule option for all play.  It’s just that it’s a two stroke penalty instead of one.  
 

I play a lot of Carolinas Golf Association senior tournaments; and for most of them, including interclub matches, the CGA allows the drop with 2 strokes, rather than hitting a provisional ball.  BUT the CGA does NOT offer that option in championship tournaments, simply because they recognize that an OB miss is a much worse miss than one that is still on the golf course.

[Augster]

4 minutes ago, bluedot said:

You’ve constructed a situation in which the penalty for OB seems unduly harsh for the same shot, but it really isn’t.  One player’s ball is in an integral part of the golf course, while the other has left the property.  Those two shots just aren’t the same, and good players play away from OB areas.  
 

And you can turn this around, too.  The player whose ball is in a penalty area but still on the golf course might justifiably ask why a player whose ball has left the course entirely gets the same penalty as he does.

 

Think the penalty for OB is too harsh? Get better at golf, or have less attachment to your score.  

This. 
 

When the “OB as red” crowd start talking about the elusive “fairness”, it’s always from the point of view of the chop that just knocked his ball off property. 
 

It’s fairness to the field, to the other golfers that actually keep their ball on the course, that the Rules care about. 

In the olden, olden days, you got one ball and your round ended when you couldn’t find it anymore. That’s about as fair as it gets. Player 1 still has a ball to tee on the 7th hole, Player 2 does not. Player 1 wins the match. 🙂

[ChaosTheory]

3 minutes ago, EdY said:

Beat me to it. 

 

That means that many people have an interest in the question.   Not that they are slow learners or something.

[bluedot]

1 minute ago, Snowman9000 said:

I really don't get wound up about rules I don't like or the somewhat opposing position of defending the status quo to the death.  Tell me the rules, I'll play by them.

 

I'd actually be okay with the original rule(s) as I understand them/it:  Play match play and once your ball is in play, you can't touch until it is in the hole.  Period, end of the rules.   If you hit into a bad enough situation, too bad, you're out of the hole, move on.

 

But I am interested, for those who are the staunchest defenders of the status quo, are there any rules of which you could support changes?  If not, is it because none of them can be improved upon?  Or it's too much trouble when a rule is changed?  Love of tradition and continuity? Or some other reason?

To be clear, I am NOT defending the “status quo”.  I’m recognizing that a shot that leaves the golf course, or one that can’t be found, is a worse shot than one that ends up in a penalty area, whether or not it’s playable.  That’s all.

 

I liked the changes that were made a few years back to bring the Rules more in line with the way people play the game.  And yes, there ARE other changes I think could be made yet.  But this isn’t one of them.

[ChaosTheory]

2 minutes ago, bluedot said:

To be clear, I am NOT defending the “status quo”.  I’m recognizing that a shot that leaves the golf course, or one that can’t be found, is a worse shot than one that ends up in a penalty area, whether or not it’s playable.  That’s all.

 

I liked the changes that were made a few years back to bring the Rules more in line with the way people play the game.  And yes, there ARE other changes I think could be made yet.  But this isn’t one of them.

 

That's great, because I do think that there are some here who simply oppose any suggestion of changing any rule.  Maybe I'm wrong in that impression.

[rogolf]

47 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

 

That's great, because I do think that there are some here who simply oppose any suggestion of changing any rule.  Maybe I'm wrong in that impression.

There is a tried and true process for making changes/modifications to the Rules.  It involves both the USGA and the R&A, and consultation with other national golf associations (such as Australia, Japan, Canada....).  While I may not agree with all of the changes/modifications, I will follow them because of that tried and true process.

[Pepperturbo]

If the OP or others don't like various rules, ignore them.  Just don't play in USGA tournaments or money games where rules govern.

 

I like the rule, and play by the rules, then again, I practiced a great deal and hit the ball relatively straight.   So tired of youngsters wanting to water down the rules so they don't have to practice or feel guilty for cheating.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Snowman9000 said:

 

That's great, because I do think that there are some here who simply oppose any suggestion of changing any rule.  Maybe I'm wrong in that impression.

 

I'd suggest that you're "wrong." 😉

[kiwigolf72]

keeping it on the golf course is a skill and players should be rewarded for doing so.

If you hit it OB or lose your ball the penalty should reflect that.

However, for amateurs I do wonder what reducing the search for a ball from 5minutes to 3 was all about (I realise it's to try to speed up the game). For pros who have galleries and marshals to help look I think 3 is about right but for your average amateur in my opinion its sometimes pretty tight. Have played in a few groups where the ball wasn't found in the required 3 minutes but eventually found in under 5.

[rzitup]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

No, the Rules define the severity, OB is more severe than a Penalty Area.  The distance of the miss is the same, if both golfers are fools and aim in the same spot.  Smart golfers will aim further from a OB line than from a Penalty, because they KNOW the penalty is more severe for OB.    

 

In my example the severity of the miss is exactly the same.  

 

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple.  You know the average handicap of a golfer in the US is somewhere around 18, and that only includes golfers with a handicap?  The true average handicap on a given day, at a random muni course is probably in the mid 20s?

 

I am a rules guy and like to follow and study the rules.  I dont like change just for the sake of change.  In this case, I like the local rule that the USGA implemented that allows a player that hits a ball OB (or lost), to drop at the edge of the fairway.  I think it's easy to understand, and quick to execute. I would love to see it made an actual USGA rule.  

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Snowman9000 said:

I really don't get wound up about rules I don't like or the somewhat opposing position of defending the status quo to the death.  Tell me the rules, I'll play by them.

 

I'd actually be okay with the original rule(s) as I understand them/it:  Play match play and once your ball is in play, you can't touch until it is in the hole.  Period, end of the rules.   If you hit into a bad enough situation, too bad, you're out of the hole, move on.

 

But I am interested, for those who are the staunchest defenders of the status quo, are there any rules of which you could support changes?  If not, is it because none of them can be improved upon?  Or it's too much trouble when a rule is changed?  Love of tradition and continuity? Or some other reason?

Not defending status quo. A rule change has to make sense. Changing how a ball that’s not long on the course to match a ball that’s in a PA on the course doesn’t make sense.

 

But the RBs already gave an option with the local rule to drop and take two strokes 

[Augster]

1 hour ago, Snowman9000 said:

I really don't get wound up about rules I don't like or the somewhat opposing position of defending the status quo to the death.  Tell me the rules, I'll play by them.

 

I'd actually be okay with the original rule(s) as I understand them/it:  Play match play and once your ball is in play, you can't touch until it is in the hole.  Period, end of the rules.   If you hit into a bad enough situation, too bad, you're out of the hole, move on.

 

But I am interested, for those who are the staunchest defenders of the status quo, are there any rules of which you could support changes?  If not, is it because none of them can be improved upon?  Or it's too much trouble when a rule is changed?  Love of tradition and continuity? Or some other reason?

I, generally, defend the Rules because I understand them. But the question, “Are there any Rules where you could support changes?” Yes. Many. The game can always be improved. Here are a few. 
 

Grounding a club in a bunker no penalty. It’s the only place left we MUST hover our club. Why? It’s silly and the Rule on it can’t be administered unilaterally so it creates a fairness imbalance. Player A hovers his club and in his backswing moves some sand but doesn’t feel it and nobody sees it, no penalty. Player B hovers his club, and takes the exact same amount of sand on his backswing as Player A, but Player B DOES feel it and calls a penalty. Thats simply not a fair application of the Rule. Get rid of it. 
 

Not being able to declare a ball lost is assinine and wasted time and is just silly. You’re already taking S&D, get on with it. Player A hits a ball on a par 3 he thinks is OB. He then hits his provisional next to the hole for a tap in 4. He tells the others in his group he’s not going to look for the first one. YET, some A-hole player or spectator goes and looks for his ball, and finds it, before Player A can RUN to the hole and tap-in. The whole thing is gross. When Player A knocks the provisional stiff he should be able to turn to his FC’s/opponents and say, “I’m declaring the first one lost.” 
 

KVC should be changed to “Known or pretty certain”. More of a 60/40 split than 95/5. Keep the game moving. The player is taking a penalty stroke anyway. Just let him have the red relief and get on with it. Most players that don’t know the Rules are taking that drop anyway, oblivious that they aren’t entitled to it. But if you do know the Rules, you’re going back to the previous spot. It shouldn’t be an advantage to not know the Rules. 
 

I could go on and on as to Rule amendments that would make the game easier to play correctly, by the Rules, and how the common golfers plays the game anyway. It’s not that hard to amend some Rules to make it easier for the common player to “accidentally” play by the Rules. 
 

I digress. 

[Golfinfloridaafter40]

2 hours ago, rzitup said:

 

So, a player hits a push drive 230 down the right and it ends up 1 foot over the hazard line and in the water.

Next player hits a push drive 230 down the right and it ends up 1 foot over the OB line.  

 

Severity of both misses exactly the same.

One guy gets to drop his ball right there and hit it.

Next guy gets to moan and mumble, then drive back to the tee, slow down the group behind, and re-tee

 

The local rule that is now available should be made a regular USGA rule.  

 

 

Time spent arguing is time you could be working on hitting the ball in play. 

[davep043]

13 minutes ago, rzitup said:

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple.

Actually it IS that simple.  The wider a player's dispersion pattern, the further he should aim from an OB line.  I know that there's a huge variation ins skill levels of players, but that doesn't really change the principles of "smart golf".  

 

15 minutes ago, rzitup said:

I am a rules guy and like to follow and study the rules.  I dont like change just for the sake of change.  In this case, I like the local rule that the USGA implemented that allows a player that hits a ball OB (or lost), to drop at the edge of the fairway.  I think it's easy to understand, and quick to execute. I would love to see it made an actual USGA rule. 

I too think this is a good addition to the Rules.  On the other hand, I don't think it should apply to higher-levels of competition.  

[Halebopp]

54 minutes ago, rzitup said:

 

In my example the severity of the miss is exactly the same.  

 

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple.  You know the average handicap of a golfer in the US is somewhere around 18, and that only includes golfers with a handicap?  The true average handicap on a given day, at a random muni course is probably in the mid 20s?

 

If some player is unable to adjust his/her game based on the challenges presented on any given hole, his/her scores and handicap index will reflect that shortcoming.

 

Club selection, aim and stroke selection are fundamental skills in golf, just like the ability to make the intended stroke.

Edited January 16 by Halebopp
Grammar

[Mr. Bean]

Wow. A completely new issue never dealt with before.

[betarhoalphadelta]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

Incidentally, the USGA experimented with this in the early sixties and abandoned the idea.

 

As Tufts said 

As was quickly discovered loss of distance only can sometimes be an advantage and not a penalty. It is, for example, always better to play the next stroke from where the last one was played than to play from where it went, when the shanked ball goes into the woods, the half topped approach over the green into deep rough or the too strong putt across the green into a bunker.

With the penalty for a lost ball reduced to distance only, a player can escape the results of a badly played stroke by immediately proceeding as if his ball were lost despite the fact that it might be found easily.

A penalty must serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. One of the great features of golf is that one stroke leads to the next and when it becomes easier to recover from adversity by use of the Rule book than a golf club, the game loses its virtue.

 

Thanks for this. While I completely agree with OB being a more severe penalty than a penalty area for the reasons others have stated, I've long chafed at the lost ball rule. 

 

I've had MANY experiences where everyone in the group is fairly clear on where the ball "should" have come to rest--and for whatever reason (rough thick enough that you can't see a ball unless you step on it, in an area inundated by fall leaves where it's likely under *1* of those leaves but you can't be checking under 100 of them, ball went down an animal hole but you don't know where, ball goes into thick bushes and you can't see deep enough into them to identify/retrieve a ball, player from other group unbeknownst to you finds ball and picks it up thinking it's a stray, etc) you simply can't find the dang thing. It seems to me that making a lost ball as penal as OB is a little screwy. 

 

That said, I never really considered the idea that instead of S&D that they change it to &D only, i.e. a lost ball is replayed from the original spot as a second stroke but without an additional stroke penalty, to be something that a player could easily manipulate to their advantage in the way described in the quoted text that you provided. I can see that being a big problem.  

 

That said, what would be the harm in changing the rule for relief from a lost ball to give these options?

• S&D -- as we say, that is nearly always an option
• Estimate to identify a relief point where it is believed the ball "should have" come to rest, and offer the same options as unplayable lie relief--two club lengths no nearer the hole or back on line of play relief from the estimated relief point, applying one penalty stroke. 
• MLR E-5 -- primarily there as a PoP alternative to S&D, in the case where the ball is still not "playable" from the relief options that would be available for an unplayable, so you get the existing MLR with two penalty strokes applied

I realize that there is an inherent problem here--estimating where the ball "should have" come to rest is obviously fraught with peril because it clearly didn't come to rest there or you'd have found it. But I see less danger of such a rule being maliciously exploited like the way described in Tufts. And in most cases, when you've lost a ball because you hit it somewhere bad (deep rough, bushes, etc), your available relief area for your drop will also be similarly bad, so when you add in a stroke penalty it's hard to see how a player "benefits" there. And in some cases like an unplayable in a deep bush where you can't get within 2 club lengths and there are no good drop locations back on line of play, you retain alternatives such as S&D or MLR E-5 which is more penal than a single stroke penalty and two club length drop. 

 

In essence, treat a lost ball as similar to a yellow/red hazard or unplayable lie. You're still applying a penalty, but not as penal as OB because it's believed by all players that the ball did not leave the course. 

[Glock917]

5 hours ago, bluedot said:

 Treating a ball that has left the property the same as a ball that is still on the property but in a penalty area isn’t fair, and the definition of “lost” means we don’t even know where the ball is, so that’s not comparable to a penalty area, either.

 

I do not think its fair you cannot hit a provisional for a ball that went into the penalty area. If its lost or OB then you can hit a provisional but not that.

 

A lot of the times, for me anyway, I hit into the penalty area from further distances. It will be nice to just take my drop play that shot as a provisional and subsequently if my ball is found in the penalty area up ahead and its playable I can just take that initial one. But the rules say say once I drop a ball from that penalty that ball is in play even if i did not make a stroke. 

 

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, rzitup said:

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple. 

 

As Dave said, it is that simple.

 

And the average handicap is like 14, but that's neither here nor there.

 

1 hour ago, rzitup said:

I would love to see it made an actual USGA rule.  

 

It is, by definition:

 

 

It's just not used in higher level competitions (nor should it be, I'd argue). Keep your ball on the course.

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, rzitup said:

 

In my example the severity of the miss is exactly the same.  

 

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple.  You know the average handicap of a golfer in the US is somewhere around 18, and that only includes golfers with a handicap?  The true average handicap on a given day, at a random muni course is probably in the mid 20s?

 

I am a rules guy and like to follow and study the rules.  I dont like change just for the sake of change.  In this case, I like the local rule that the USGA implemented that allows a player that hits a ball OB (or lost), to drop at the edge of the fairway.  I think it's easy to understand, and quick to execute. I would love to see it made an actual USGA rule.  

The “severity” of the miss in your example is NOT the same.  The DISTANCE of the miss is the same, but that’s all.  Hitting the ball off the property of the golf course is, and has always been, a more severe miss than keeping the ball on the course, even if in a penalty area.

[bluedot]

2 hours ago, Glock917 said:

 

I do not think its fair you cannot hit a provisional for a ball that went into the penalty area. If its lost or OB then you can hit a provisional but not that.

 

A lot of the times, for me anyway, I hit into the penalty area from further distances. It will be nice to just take my drop play that shot as a provisional and subsequently if my ball is found in the penalty area up ahead and its playable I can just take that initial one. But the rules say say once I drop a ball from that penalty that ball is in play even if i did not make a stroke. 

 

 

The purpose of a provisional ball is to prevent having to go back to the tee if the player incurs a stroke and distance penalty.  The player who hits a provisional does NOT get to choose which ball to play; if the original ball is found in bounds, the provisional is abandoned.  

 

None of that applies to a ball hit into a penalty area; there is no stroke and distance penalty, though dropping and hitting again from the original spot is an option.  It’s a fundamental principle of the Rules that you never get to choose which ball to play, so the rule about taking a drop and then playing out the hole with that ball, even if the original ball is found, is fundamental.  Harsh in certain circumstances, for sure, but fundamental nevertheless.

 

And I won’t get into “fair” except to say this:  Fair means tha you are treated exactly the same as everyone else.  It does not mean that you get the outcome that you want, or even the one you might deserve.

 

 

[EdY]

Right now it’s 35-10. Did the OP get his question answered? Not scientific because same posters opining more than once but u get the idea. 

[Shilgy]

7 hours ago, rzitup said:

 

In my example the severity of the miss is exactly the same.  

 

"Smart golfers will aim further from the OB line" - if only it were that simple.  You know the average handicap of a golfer in the US is somewhere around 18, and that only includes golfers with a handicap?  The true average handicap on a given day, at a random muni course is probably in the mid 20s?

 

I am a rules guy and like to follow and study the rules.  I dont like change just for the sake of change.  In this case, I like the local rule that the USGA implemented that allows a player that hits a ball OB (or lost), to drop at the edge of the fairway.  I think it's easy to understand, and quick to execute. I would love to see it made an actual USGA rule.  

And the OB penalty would still be harsher than the penalty area if they made MLR E5 an actual rule.

 

As it should be.

Edited January 17 by Shilgy

[Glock917]

5 hours ago, bluedot said:

Harsh in certain circumstances

Fair wasn’t the correct term used. Was more like it can lead to unfortunate situations. 
i never expect anything to be fair or given to me when i play cause everything is earned and when your playing field is a moving dynamic organism anything can happen. 
Just speaking for like those situations where you’re just trying to keep pace of play and dropping you can get screwed at times
 

[st1800e]

Reading through this and many similar threads in the past.  
 

Questions are asked about rules, excellent.  
 

Some responses explain the rule, some more explain the logic behind the rules. Excellent.  
 

Some then say , that’s not fair, wouldn’t this be better?  Excellent.  
 

Some respond as to why that would not work. Excellent.  
 

Then others respond , that doesn’t make any sense, that’s not fair…

 

Some respond with explanation why fair isn’t what it’s about. Excellent.  

 

Its a game, with rules. The rules do change over time.   The integrity of the game is the underlying principle.  
 

Some years ago , playing in Scotland, one player in the the group asked for a free lift,

 

The caddie’s response,

 

“Touch the ball….in Golf?”

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

13 hours ago, bluedot said:

 It’s a fundamental principle of the Rules that you never get to choose which ball to play

 

That's not a "fundamental principle" of the Rules of Golf.

 

Aside from situations that can be constructed where you can make a choice, you also have many situations where options effectively give you a choice.  

 

There are a few things being said in haste (been there many times, lol) that folks that know the Rules might reconsider on reflection.

 

On another note, put me down for never supporting E-5 - it was silly and populist, IMO, and a guaranteed lie in the fairway is BS no matter how you slice it, BUT where allowed there are situations where I've availed myself of the option.  It was always never going to be good enough for the "OB is so penalizing, OMG two strokes added to my card" crowd anyway and the pace of play "benefits" are negligible, if at all.

Edited January 17 by Hawkeye77

[RCGA]

17 hours ago, davep043 said:

Actually it IS that simple.  The wider a player's dispersion pattern, the further he should aim from an OB line.  I know that there's a huge variation ins skill levels of players, but that doesn't really change the principles of "smart golf".  

 

Aiming further from the OB line (or forest that's considered lost ball) oftentimes means aiming closer to the adjacent fairway. There's a player safety component that never gets addressed.