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

[Hawkeye77]

8 hours ago, sui generis said:

1.3 Playing by the Rules

a. Meaning of “Rules”; Terms of the Competition

The term “Rules” means:

 

Rules 1-25 and the definitions in these Rules of Golf, and

 

Any “Local Rules” the Committee adopts for the competition or the course.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=1&subrulenum=3

Amazing what just a read of the definitions will yield!

 

Now, about having to play out of someone’s divot hole ……… 😃

Edited January 19 by Hawkeye77

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Shilgy said:

It’s all good…you don’t need to hide an answer.  There are 25 rules in the official rules of golf. The model local rules are #8 in the “committee procedures”.  Even @rogolf stated they are not a part of the, his phrase, “regular rules”.

 

Yes, they are, as the two posts directly after the quoted one of yours and the two times I've posted the picture of the same thing they cited says.

 

9 hours ago, Shilgy said:

So to say we’re playing by the rules of golf it would be 1-25….if they added an except we play MLR E5 that old be a course rule…not a rule of golf.

 

No. Sorry.

[Mr. Bean]

Sorry for maybe being a pain in the neck, but in this thread has ANYTHING come up that nas NOT been said a multitude of times before on the subject..?

 

I have not read any of it so I honestly ask...

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Sorry for maybe being a pain in the neck, but in this thread has ANYTHING come up that nas NOT been said a multitude of times before on the subject..?

 

I have not read any of it so I honestly ask...

 

Of course not.

[davep043]

43 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

but in this thread has ANYTHING come up that nas NOT been said a multitude of times before on the subject

I know that for the first time in my memory, I used the .  Other than that, not a thing.

[Hawkeye77]

48 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Sorry for maybe being a pain in the neck, but in this thread has ANYTHING come up that nas NOT been said a multitude of times before on the subject..?

 

I have not read any of it so I honestly ask...

Don't pass out Mr. Bean, I agree with you. 😉

[bluedot]

21 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I'm not in the "everything is a lateral" camp. After reading here and thinking about it, hitting a ball off the golf course (into houses, roads/traffic, or other places where people exist and don't deserve to be hit by golf balls) being more penal than a lateral penalty area makes perfect sense to me. Interestingly I have a local course where the back 9 is flanked by canyons/wilderness (no private property, people, etc) and they rule that anything leaving the course on those holes is a lateral. Probably for PoP. I don't know if anyone has tried to find a ball out there and play it, but I certainly am not braving rattlesnake-infested SoCal wilderness to save a penalty stroke!

 

But just as knowing OB exists gives you a reason to play away from it, knowing a penalty area exists gives you a reason to play away from it. 

 

So I'm standing on a tee box and I know there's a pond right. I know left is safe but in light rough. I have a hole at a local course that comes to mind--I can clear the pond with a PERFECT drive but try to play away from it. So I line up trying to take a right miss out of play and I personally frequently hit it into that left rough. I've never actually lost a ball over there, but I've lost balls in similarly light rough on courses in the past. 

 

So while you say it's bad that it is too easy to make a bogey from hitting it into light rough and not finding it, I'd be willing to argue that hitting it into a pond that I can see FROM THE TEE, taking lateral relief, and still having a decent chance at making a bogey (probably mid iron into the green from the point it crosses) isn't penal enough. I knew the pond was there and hit it there anyway, right? Why should it be "too easy" to make bogey??? But the counterargument would be that if I hit it left and successfully avoided the penalty area, why should it be more penal than hitting it into the penalty area?

 

To me, it seems that there are two main arguments against what I've described:

 

1. Traditionally, golf is a "play it as it lies" sport. There are defined rules for how to handle something in a penalty area (even if it's by nature at the bottom of a pond and you can't "find" it but you know--KVC--it went into the penalty area), but there's no good rule for playing a ball that you can't "play as it lies" because you don't know "where it lies". So from a historical perspective, "losing" a ball is more penal than hitting a ball into a penalty area, even if you can't find it in a penalty area. 
2. Inherently the unplayable scenario based upon an "estimated" relief point is difficult. While MLR E-5 gives the ability to "estimate" where a ball "should" be, that's kind of a wishy-washy sort of thing. If I know I s-worded one into the bushes and I determine my relief point is conveniently 1.5 club lengths into the bush giving me a clear line of play, versus maybe the real estimate should be 2.5 club lengths into the bush meaning I'm taking S&D or MLR E-5 anyway... There's potential for foul play. 

 

But what I don't understand is why a lost ball hit ON the course is more penal than a ball hit into a penalty area, nor equally penal to a ball hit OFF the course, just because it's in an area where for whatever reason you can't find it in 3 minutes. 

I understand your point.  But how you you craft a rule to deal with a lost ball when the ball was lost near OB, which I think you’d agree is very common.  We often find balls barely in bounds or barely out of bounds, but if you’re unable to find it with OB nearby, what then?  And how far from OB would you have to be before you would be able to say that it is NOT OB, even though you can’t find it?  

 

I would assume that these are the problems that lead to lost and OB being treated the same.  While we can all agree that a ball lost far from any OB in heavy rough in the summer, or under leaves in in the fall, or after a bounce off a tree anytime of the year, isn’t OB, I don’t know how you could possibly write the rule.

[betarhoalphadelta]

34 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I understand your point.  But how you you craft a rule to deal with a lost ball when the ball was lost near OB, which I think you’d agree is very common.  We often find balls barely in bounds or barely out of bounds, but if you’re unable to find it with OB nearby, what then?  And how far from OB would you have to be before you would be able to say that it is NOT OB, even though you can’t find it?  

 

I would assume that these are the problems that lead to lost and OB being treated the same.  While we can all agree that a ball lost far from any OB in heavy rough in the summer, or under leaves in in the fall, or after a bounce off a tree anytime of the year, isn’t OB, I don’t know how you could possibly write the rule.

Excellent point and one I didn't think of. However I think you can still work with it. I could see it being similar to having KVC of two possible outcomes but not sure which, and by rule you have to take the worse of the two. 

 

My post in this thread is an possible example. I hit a ball that I believe crossed a creek and embedded into the slope above a creek*. The slope is VERY soggy and is marked GUR. I couldn't find my ball in the GUR (or nearby). Technically a ball in GUR doesn't have to be found if there is KVC that the ball is in the GUR location (i.e. embedded in soggy ground marked GUR being one example, being in temporary water and not visible is another). If the creek was not there, I would have had KVC that the ball was embedded in GUR and entitled to free relief. But since I didn't see a bounce and the creek surface is not visible from the tee, the creek ensured I could not have KVC it was in the GUR as it could have been in the creek. However given the situation, I had KVC that it was EITHER in the GUR or the creek. So as I think Dave pointed out in that thread, the rule is that I have to take relief from the penalty area (the worse of the two) incurring a one-stroke penalty**.

 

So I would assume the rule would be written such that if there is OB in the area, you would need to have KVC that the ball was lost in bounds, which is obviously a very high standard. And if you do not have KVC, you must treat it as OB with the according penalties. 

 

I've had that happen recently too. Hole with trees lining the left side and OB just beyond. I hooked a drive and couldn't find it. Depending on what happened with the trees it's entirely possible that it was a lost ball in bounds, but I had absolutely no way to have KVC, so I had to play it as a ball OB. I didn't necessarily think of it that way as OB and lost ball are treated similarly in the current rule.

 

 * I actually did the same the next time I played there and found my ball embedded about 3" in the hole it dug.

 ** I applied the penalty wrong out of ignorance, taking MLR E-5 relief for a lost ball, as I didn't know at the time that balls in GUR didn't need to be located. 

[Mr. Bean]

6 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Don't pass out Mr. Bean, I agree with you. 😉

Thanks. So I do not need read any of it. I suspected that.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I should point out I had one round where I hit an absolutely gorgeous, PERFECT, little baby draw off the tee with driver on a par 5, that we all knew was headed not just for the fairway, but dead center of the fairway. A nice, wide, flat, fairway, mind you. Zero features that would have changed the trajectory of the ball upon landing. However... The landing area is hidden from the tee. 

 

We got up there and... No ball. Nothing. Looked everywhere. Couldn't find a dang ball. And as was pointed out to me in this forum, did not have KVC of any outside influence moving/taking the ball. 

 

So I do think that should have been treated as 2 strokes + distance. Because I'm pretty sure I didn't just hit it "off the course"; I hit it into an alternate dimension. Only explanation I can come up with 😂

[jvincent]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I should point out I had one round where I hit an absolutely gorgeous, PERFECT, little baby draw off the tee with driver on a par 5, that we all knew was headed not just for the fairway, but dead center of the fairway. A nice, wide, flat, fairway, mind you. Zero features that would have changed the trajectory of the ball upon landing. However... The landing area is hidden from the tee. 

 

 

I lost a ball in the middle of the fairway once where we could see the entire landing area.

 

Told the guy we played our second round that day about it and he couldn't believe it. Until he almost did the same thing. We ended up finding his ball in the sunken collar around a sprinkler head. The ball was completely below the surface so unless you walked over the sprinkler you could not see it.

[Hawkeye77]

Other than forfeiting them to penalty areas and OB, occasions have been rare, few and very far between when I've ever had a lost ball during 100s of rounds but these days I could easily lose an elephant in my closet.

[SNIPERBBB]

Guy I used to play with always said that a lost ball was penalty enough. I guess thats true when you are sending 5 dollar bills off the course thats a pretty good penalty. But when you're sending Nitros all over the place or whatever ball(s) you found on the last hole, it loses some meaning if you dont take the S&D...

[nsxguy]

On 1/19/2024 at 4:57 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

So I would assume the rule would be written such that if there is OB in the area, you would need to have KVC that the ball was lost in bounds, which is obviously a very high standard. And if you do not have KVC, you must treat it as OB with the according penalties

 

Whenever I try to think of an alternate way for a rule to be written I try to think of "worst case".

 

So, you're playing a match and playing the 18th hole. You hit an OK drive down the left center of the fairway. Your opponent blocks his drive into this very area you describe.

 

"Whew, that was close," he says.

 

"Close to what ?" says you.

 

"Close to being OB but I'm sure it didn't hop past the line/fence. Where do I drop for my 1 shot penalty again ?"

 

"Ummmmm,,,,,,,, errrrrrr,,,,,,,, welllllll,,,,,,,,,,,"

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Whenever I try to think of an alternate way for a rule to be written I try to think of "worst case".

 

So, you're playing a match and playing the 18th hole. You hit an OK drive down the left center of the fairway. Your opponent blocks his drive into this very area you describe.

 

"Whew, that was close," he says.

 

"Close to what ?" says you.

 

"Close to being OB but I'm sure it didn't hop past the line/fence. Where do I drop for my 1 shot penalty again ?"

 

"Ummmmm,,,,,,,, errrrrrr,,,,,,,, welllllll,,,,,,,,,,,"

 

Yeah, but isn't that always the issue with KVC? 

 

Aren't all the KVC rules essentially written in such a way that a dishonest person may try to claim KVC even when they really can't have KVC on the matter? 

 

Ask yourself if you're a rules official or "the committee" how you would adjudicate that? Ball is hit in the vicinity of OB. It can't be found. Player claims KVC that it didn't go OB, but how can they clear that 95% standard if they can't find the ball in bounds? I have to think you'd rule against the player, right? 

 

Cheaters gon' cheat, no matter how you write the rule. 

[nsxguy]

22 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yeah, but isn't that always the issue with KVC? 

 

Aren't all the KVC rules essentially written in such a way that a dishonest person may try to claim KVC even when they really can't have KVC on the matter? 

 

Ask yourself if you're a rules official or "the committee" how you would adjudicate that? Ball is hit in the vicinity of OB. It can't be found. Player claims KVC that it didn't go OB, but how can they clear that 95% standard if they can't find the ball in bounds? I have to think you'd rule against the player, right? 

 

Cheaters gon' cheat, no matter how you write the rule. 

 

True enough, cheaters gonna cheat, but there's no reason to give them more opportunities to do it.

 

KVC for a penalty area usually saves a single shot.

 

KVC, in this case, would save a shot AND remove the often daunting proposition of having to play the same shot over again.

[st1800e]

10 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Ask yourself if you're a rules official or "the committee" how you would adjudicate that? Ball is hit in the vicinity of OB. It can't be found. Player claims KVC that it didn't go OB, but how can they clear that 95% standard if they can't find the ball in bounds? I have to think you'd rule against the player, right? 

Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, but OB, or lost inbounds (can’t find it), effectively doesn’t matter, both are stroke and distance.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

13 hours ago, st1800e said:

Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, but OB, or lost inbounds (can’t find it), effectively doesn’t matter, both are stroke and distance.  

 

Yes, but upthread I proposed that perhaps lost ball in bounds *shouldn't* be as penal as OB. After all, hitting into a known penalty area is penal (it's even there in the name since we no longer call them hazards lol). Hitting off the golf course is penal. But hitting the ball into the general area and simply not being able to find it is as penal as OB? 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But hitting the ball into the general area and simply not being able to find it is as penal as OB? 

 

Yep. You literally don't know where it is, or the lie, etc. You're unable to play the hole by playing your ball or your ball in a known situation from tee to green.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But hitting the ball into the general area and simply not being able to find it is as penal as OB? 

How do you know it is not OB if you don't know where it is?

[betarhoalphadelta]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Yep. You literally don't know where it is, or the lie, etc. You're unable to play the hole by playing your ball or your ball in a known situation from tee to green.

 

I know. I get that argument. I'm just not sure I agree with it. 

 

As a kid, I used to caddie at a links-style course in the Chicago suburbs (Chicago Golf Club). Beyond the second cut of rough was completely un-maintained grass. In the summer it was ankle-length with knee-length prairie grasses in some areas. 

 

You hit a ball in that stuff, and you might not find it unless you step on it, even though you SEE where it landed. You have KVC the ball finished in the general area, not a penalty area or OB. You just can't find it.

 

Seems strange to me to make it essentially a two-stroke penalty (i.e. stroke + distance) when hitting it into a pond--a defined penalty area--and see it splash is only stroke. You can't find it at the bottom of a pond either, so you have to estimate where it crossed the penalty area. 

 

5 minutes ago, Newby said:

How do you know it is not OB if you don't know where it is?

 

KVC. If you saw the ball land in heavy rough and there's no OB within 100 yards of that spot, I'd say you have virtual certainty that it's not OB. 

 

(Per the above discussion, if it's lost in the vicinity of OB you probably can't have KVC and therefore must play as if it were OB.)

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I know. I get that argument. I'm just not sure I agree with it.

 

I didn't say much that's an opinion.

• Fact: You literally don't know where it is, or the lie, etc.
• Fact: You're unable to play the hole by playing your ball or your ball in a known situation from tee to green.

10 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

As a kid, I used to caddie at a links-style course in the Chicago suburbs (Chicago Golf Club). Beyond the second cut of rough was completely un-maintained grass. In the summer it was ankle-length with knee-length prairie grasses in some areas.

 

And nowadays those areas might be marked red. The Rules are different now than they used to be. So I'm not sure why you typed up as much about that as you did. 😄 

 

If it's not marked as red, hit a provisional. Or choose a different club if you hit it into the stuff all the time.

[Newby]

46 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

KVC. If you saw the ball land in heavy rough and there's no OB within 100 yards of that spot, I'd say you have virtual certainty that it's not OB. 

 

 

So the penalty would depend on how close to OB you think the ball may have finished? 

But where would you drop?

[st1800e]

So this topic seems to be going around and around…with no resolution. 

I get that you think the rule should be different than it is.  
And many responses explain why that wouldn’t work.  

So, is there any purpose in reiterating what’s already been said/covered? 
 

Can’t find my BADH emoji.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I didn't say much that's an opinion.

• Fact: You literally don't know where it is, or the lie, etc.
• Fact: You're unable to play the hole by playing your ball or your ball in a known situation from tee to green.

 

 

Again, I don't disagree with those facts. However, if you have KVC that your ball is in a penalty area but can't find it (i.e. it's at the bottom of a pond) you also can't play your ball. But we've defined a rule that says you estimate where your ball crossed the hazard line and get one club length drop and a penalty stroke. 

 

In this case you have KVC that your ball came to rest in the general area. I completely agree that there should be a penalty for being unable to find it, but I don't understand why the penalty should be MORE severe than hitting into a defined penalty area, nor why it should be AS severe as hitting into an area defined as literally outside the bounds of the playing area. 

 

If we changed a penalty area to be S&D, there would be no disparity. All three would be identical. So I'm asking what justifies the opinion that a lost ball with KVC that it came to rest in the general area SHOULD be more penal than a penalty area. 

 

1 minute ago, Newby said:

So the penalty would depend on how close to OB you think the ball may have finished? 

But where would you drop?

 

Yes re: the first question. I got this idea from a previous thread about not needing to find a ball if it's lost in an abnormal course condition if there is KVC it's in there. I cited an instance at my local course where I believed that my ball was plugged in an area marked GUR but couldn't have KVC as there is a blind creek just in front of KVC. Although I didn't see a bounce, nor a splash, i couldn't have KVC that it wasn't in the creek. So I played it as a lost ball--MLR E-5 invoked for PoP-with a 2-stroke penalty. I was corrected that if there was KVC that the ball was EITHER in the creek or the GUR, and there was, I couldn't avail free relief from GUR but should have taken penalty area relief instead with a single penalty stroke. I should not have treated it as a lost ball.

 

I would view a lost ball in the vicinity of OB similarly. If you can't have KVC that the ball came to rest in the general area, then you play as if it were OB, not lost. 

 

The "where would you drop" question is the harder one, and one I acknowledge is tricky. How can you have an "estimated" point of where a ball was lost if there's obviously no ball to be found there? But is this really all that different from estimating where a ball crossed a hazard line and taking relief from the point of crossing? If the ball is 45 feet in the air and curving you don't know *exactly* where it crossed--especially if any portion of it is blind. You essentially have to make your best guess. 

 

You might say it's ripe for abuse to "estimate" where a ball "should have" come to rest. But at the same time, you're not getting free relief. You're still being assessed a penalty stroke for losing your ball. So it's not some get out of jail free card here...

[betarhoalphadelta]

19 minutes ago, st1800e said:

So this topic seems to be going around and around…with no resolution. 

I get that you think the rule should be different than it is.  
And many responses explain why that wouldn’t work.  

So, is there any purpose in reiterating what’s already been said/covered? 
 

Can’t find my BADH emoji.  

 

Yes, there are two questions here:

 

1. SHOULD losing a ball with KVC that it must have come to rest in the general area carry a more severe penalty than hitting a ball with KVC that it came to rest in a defined penalty area and as severe as KVC that the ball is out of bounds?
2. IF the answer to question 1 is "no", is there any way to write a rule that works?

 

The first question is the one that I say is "opinion". Some of you may say that yes, a lost ball absolutely SHOULD be S&D. If that's the case, then yes that's going to just go around and around as it's opinion. 

 

But the second question is interesting. A solution could be to make the result distance only, not stroke. I.e. if it's your tee ball, go back to the teeing area, hit again, and you're hitting two instead of three as you would with S&D. @Newby posted on page 1 of this thread why that doesn't work, and although I hadn't thought of it previously, I agree with why it shouldn't be distance only. 

 

I proposed a rule. IMHO the only thing that you can point to it being "wrong" is the obvious point I make--how can you determine a reference point for where a drop may occur based on where a ball "should have" come to rest if there's obviously no ball there? But is that enough of an issue to be a problem? If you're on a course with very heavy rough, or perhaps in the fall where your ball could be under one of hundreds of leaves, is an "estimated" point really that bad of an option, or ripe for abuse, if you're already assessing a penalty stroke?

 

[GoGoErky]

57 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

SHOULD losing a ball with KVC that it must have come to rest in the general area carry a more severe penalty than hitting a ball with KVC that it came to rest in a defined penalty area and as severe as KVC that the ball is out of bounds?

general area is treated different than a penalty area. Simple, you are pretty sure that a ball in the penalty isn’t going to be found if it’s underwater. Just like penalty area is treated differently from ob

 

Not being able to find a ball in general area is lost and lost ball penalty applies. 

57 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

IF the answer to question 1 is "no", is there any way to write a rule that works?

Yep it’s already written, it’s called lost ball. Theres no rule to be written to give a drop for the general area. 

Edited February 15 by GoGoErky

[GoGoErky]

58 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But the second question is interesting. A solution could be to make the result distance only, not stroke. I.e. if it's your tee ball, go back to the teeing area, hit again, and you're hitting two instead of three as you would with S&D. @Newby posted on page 1 of this thread why tha

So you want no penalty for not being able to find your ball other than to go back and get a mulligan.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

So you want no penalty for not being able to find your ball other than to go back and get a mulligan.

 

A mulligan is free. He's proposing a single stroke penalty.

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

So you want no penalty for not being able to find your ball other than to go back and get a mulligan.

 

First, the idea wasn't a mulligan. You would still be hitting your second stroke after the ball was lost, not your first stroke. You simply wouldn't be hitting your third. 

 

Second, although I brought it up as a potential solution, I then in immediately discarded the solution. It had already been addressed on the first page of the thread by Newby and I found the explanation why it wasn't a good solution to be convincing.