Originally Posted by Fourputt
Sorry, but did you read my entire post (I realize it was a bit long)? When you change the penalty structure, you have fundamentally changed how you balance advantage gained through normal play versus advantage gained by penalty. When it costs no more to hit the ball off the course than it does to keep in on the course, there is no longer any particular incentive to play the course as you find it (one of the 2 most fundamental principles of golf). Dogleg requiring a carry over the boundary? No big deal, it's just a one stroke penalty if you miss, you get to keep any distance gained before leaving the course, so it's well worth the risk. How can you tell me that won't change the fundamental way that the game is played?
If you apply stroke and distance, and assume you make your shots afterwards, your 2nd tee shot is 3 and you're on the green in four.
If you've got to drop where it crossed the OB, then you're lying two, on the tee side of the dog leg. If the OB is wooded or there is some sort of obstruction, then you've got to punch out and hope to get on in 4--the same as stroke and distance. If its open and labelled OB for no apparent reason, then I guess there might be a scenario when you can go for another hero shot and hope to be on in 3 (of course, the safe play is down the fairway then on in 2).
So basically, you're saying that such a rule would fundamentally change the nature of golf because if you're playing a course that has a dog legged hole, and if that hole has OB in the bend, and if the OB area does not contain an obstruction, and if you could get on the green from the far side of the bend on your third shot, you might be more inclined to attempt the hero shot because the penalty for failing is 1 stroke not 2?
If you're going to argue that this rule fundamentally changes the game, stick with lost balls, not contrived examples of OB.