Poll: OB/Lost Ball vs. Hazard & Unplayable Lie Penalties

[Phil McGleno]

So mefree if you lose this poll does that mean youll sotp posting all these threads about how the people want the rules to be different?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The color of paint is not as arbitrary as you think it is, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.  If it's white, you are out of bounds.  If it's red you aren't.  I don't even get the point of your argument.  It still goes back to the fundamental principle that you play the course as you find it.  How the course management or designer chooses to have that canyon marked has no bearing on that principle.  It just is whatever it is.

Argh.  I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this (in fact, I expect no less) but I am having trouble with the idea that you don't even understand my point.  I'm just going to quit while I'm behind. :)

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree that their choice would (or should) be arbitrary. Water hazards have a very clear definition in the Rules of Golf. Do some courses occasionally ignore them? Sure. Do some courses mark a forest as a lateral hazard to speed up play? Sure (but even then it's not arbitrary) - but the course plays that way for all, and is rated as such, etc.

Fair enough.  My only counter-argument would be to the bold, and it would simply be that this is going to be true no matter what the penalty rules were.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Fair enough.  My only counter-argument would be to the bold, and it would simply be that this is going to be true no matter what the penalty rules were.

…In which case you have to have a reason, and the idea of gradation of penalty, the difference between a ball that's in play versus one that's not, and other things become the overriding principles that dictate the approach to the rules, not one odd hole on one course where they probably should mark something differently.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The color of paint is not as arbitrary as you think it is, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.  If it's white, you are out of bounds.  If it's red you aren't.  I don't even get the point of your argument.  It still goes back to the fundamental principle that you play the course as you find it.  How the course management or designer chooses to have that canyon marked has no bearing on that principle.  It just is whatever it is.

Argh.  I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this (in fact, I expect no less) but I am having trouble with the idea that you don't even understand my point.  I'm just going to quit while I'm behind. :)

I do get your point, but I just don't see its relevance.  If the canyon is such that it is a water channel, then course has the option of marking it either way.  I don't see that as having any relevance to a rules change.  Marked as hazard they might have players trying to hit impossible shots out of it.  Marked as out of bounds, they don't have to worry about it.  If your ball goes that way, play a provisional (or just rehit if it's certain that the ball is gone).  I still shouldn't be a consideration for a rules modification.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

…In which case you have to have a reason, and the idea of gradation of penalty, the difference between a ball that's in play versus one that's not, and other things become the overriding principles that dictate the approach to the rules, not one odd hole on one course where they probably should mark something differently.

Well, I said in my first post that I voted for keeping the penalty rules the same soooooooooo ... I don't have a reason.

However, were mefree to be made head of the USGA and R&A; tomorrow (yikes!!)  and declare that all white stakes are now to be painted red with green tops and played like a lateral ESA hazard, the game would barely be different.

OB comes into play so infrequently anyways at most places (I realize, too, that this argument works for both sides) so how could it possibly affect the game THAT much?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

However, were mefree to be made head of the USGA and R&A; tomorrow (yikes!!)  and declare that all white stakes are now to be painted red with green tops and played like a lateral ESA hazard, the game would barely be different.

The problem with that is that more people understand what white stakes mean than ESA stakes. :) You'd still have a bunch of people seeing "red stakes" and playing from an area from which they shouldn't.

But that's probably too far off topic for comfort, so… moving on.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

The problem with that is that more people understand what white stakes mean than ESA stakes. :) You'd still have a bunch of people seeing "red stakes" and playing from an area from which they shouldn't.

But that's probably too far off topic for comfort, so… moving on.

Yup.

And yup.

[boogielicious]

My head hurts.  I accidentally voted no (clicked the wrong box 'cuz I wasn't wearing the right glasses), but now I have been convinced to the argument that OB should be more severe.  I can't remember the last time I hit a ball OB.  At least not in the last three years.  Lost balls happen far more frequently and hazards the most.  Watching PGA golf, we see it more often, but those guys are so freaking good, then can get away with a bogey or even par on a par 5 after an OB shot.

As for pace of play, players should be hitting more provisional balls if there is any doubt, which they generally don't.

MEFree,

Time to let it go.  That'll do Pig.  That'll do.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by MEfree

When you hit a ball into a big lake, you might KNOW it is in the Lake, but you might not know EXACTLY where in the Lake it is.  Same thing with losing a ball in the trees or the rough- you might KNOW it is in the trees but not know EXACTLY where in the trees it is.

You are correct that each of us could come up with different examples of one shot being better or worse in specific circumstances, BUT In either case, you don't actually find your golf ball- BOTH BALLS ARE LOST.  So why should the  penalty for a ball lost in a hazard be less than for a ball lost in the trees or lost in the rough?

You remind me of the story about the guy who enters a monastery where the rule is that one can only speak 2 words, every ten years.  At the end of 10 years he says to the Father Superior, "Bed hard."  At the end of the next 10 years he says to the Father Superior, "Food cold."  At the end of the next 10 years he says to the Father Superior, "I quit."

And the Father Superior replies, "I'm not surprised, all you've done is complain since you got here.".

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Just curious, under your proposed rules, let's say I hit my ball into the left rough and my ball becomes lost. I proceed under your rule to take a drop a club length from an arbitrary point that I pick (a spot that I think the ball is lost but obviously isn't it since the ball isn't there) and hit what is now my third shot. Just after the ball leaves the face of the club my opponent alerts me that he sees my ball some distance behind me. What happens now?

MEfree, could you please answer my above question. I'd like to know how your rules would work in this situation.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Just curious, under your proposed rules, let's say I hit my ball into the left rough and my ball becomes lost. I proceed under your rule to take a drop a club length from an arbitrary point that I pick (a spot that I think the ball is lost but obviously isn't it since the ball isn't there) and hit what is now my third shot. Just after the ball leaves the face of the club my opponent alerts me that he sees my ball some distance behind me. What happens now?

You'd treat your search area similar to a hazard and drop it at the estimated entry point of the search area (aka, the farthest point in the search area from the hole) similar to how you estimate where your ball entered a hazard.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by MEfree

You'd treat your search area similar to a hazard and drop it at the estimated entry point of the search area (aka, the farthest point in the search area from the hole) similar to how you estimate where your ball entered a hazard.

Right, I understand that part. But what happens when you do that and immediately after you hit the ball your opponent finds your first ball BEHIND where you played, meaning you played nearer to the hole. What happens then?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

You'd treat your search area similar to a hazard and drop it at the estimated entry point of the search area (aka, the farthest point in the search area from the hole) similar to how you estimate where your ball entered a hazard.

Right, I understand that part. But what happens when you do that and immediately after you hit the ball your opponent finds your first ball BEHIND where you played, meaning you played nearer to the hole. What happens then?

There is no reasonable answer to that because it's a silly idea.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Right, I understand that part. But what happens when you do that and immediately after you hit the ball your opponent finds your first ball BEHIND where you played, meaning you played nearer to the hole. What happens then?

Just to play devil advocate what happens if this occurs when you think your ball entered a lateral water hazard.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

There is no reasonable answer to that because it's a silly idea.

I'd agree with that but I want to know what it is anyways.

I'm no rules guru, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the current rules would require you to continue play with the ball you dropped. That means you would have the stroke penalty for that and then a two stroke penalty on top of that for playing from the wrong spot. Would that be right? If it is, there is no way I would take this option in any sort of meaningful round... I'd much rather just play from the original spot and take stroke and distance.

Also, in a situation like this when the ball is lost how long is your opponent allowed to look for your ball to ensure that you indeed did not play nearer to the hole?

I realize it seems like I'm asking a lot of what if's, but these are the things the rules have to cover. The rules seem complex and wordy at times but they have to be because there are so many situations that have to be covered, so how do your rules cover this one?

[tristanhilton85]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad max

Just to play devil advocate what happens if this occurs when you think your ball entered a lateral water hazard.

The decisions cover this:

Quote:

26-1/3.5

Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule with Knowledge or Virtual Certainty; Original Ball Then Found

Q. A player's ball is struck towards a water hazard. It is known or virtually certain that the player's ball is in the water hazard, and he drops a ball under Rule 26-1b . Before he plays the dropped ball, his original ball is found within the five-minute search period. What is the ruling?

A. As it was known or virtually certain that the ball was in the water hazard when the player put the substituted ball into play, that ball was correctly substituted and he may not play the original ball.

If the original ball was found in the water hazard and this discovery affects the reference point for proceeding under Rule 26-1b, resulting in the substituted ball having been dropped in a wrong place, the player must correct the error under Rule 20-6. The player must proceed in accordance with any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 with respect to the correct reference point (see Decisions 20-6/2 and 26-1/16 ). Otherwise, Rule 20-6 does not apply and the player must continue play with the dropped ball. In either case, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 26-1 .

In the unlikely event that the original ball was found outside the water hazard, the player must continue with the dropped ball under penalty of one stroke (Rule 26-1 ).

[mad max]

This is as close as I can find.

Q. A player assumes his original ball to be in a water hazard, despite the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty to that effect. Using the option in Rule 26-1a , he plays another ball at the spot from which the original ball was played. He then finds his original ball outside the hazard. What is the ruling?

A. The original ball is lost and the other ball is in play under penalty of stroke and distance - see Rule 27-1a and the Definition of "Lost Ball." (Revised)

[tristanhilton85]

Max, look at the last paragraph of the decision I quoted above.