or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Poll: OB/Lost Ball vs. Hazard & Unplayable Lie Penalties
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: OB/Lost Ball vs. Hazard & Unplayable Lie Penalties - Page 4

Poll Results: Should the penalties for Out of Bounds and Lost Balls be more severe than penalties for Hazards and Unplayables?

 
  • 52% (22)
    Yes, they should be more severe
  • 40% (17)
    No, the should be the same
  • 7% (3)
    Undecided
42 Total Votes  
post #55 of 117

It should definitely be more penal to hit a ball OB than to hit it in a hazard or unplayable lie.  when a course has boundaries and you go outside of them you haven't yet made any forward progress with that shot.  Sure, it would be easier if you had stroke but not distance penalties for OB but that gives you credit for yardage that wasn't actually gained.

post #56 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

It should definitely be more penal to hit a ball OB than to hit it in a hazard or unplayable lie. When a course has boundaries and you go outside of them you haven't yet made any forward progress with that shot.  Sure, it would be easier if you had stroke but not distance penalties for OB but that gives you credit for yardage that wasn't actually gained.

 

I like the way you put that.

post #57 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

It should definitely be more penal to hit a ball OB than to hit it in a hazard or unplayable lie.  when a course has boundaries and you go outside of them you haven't yet made any forward progress with that shot.  Sure, it would be easier if you had stroke but not distance penalties for OB but that gives you credit for yardage that wasn't actually gained.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I like the way you put that.

 

Except that if you hit the ball into a hazard you've made forward progress with that ball.  So the only difference with OB is the rule itself.  Since the question is whether the rule should be changed, that really misses the point.

post #58 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Except that if you hit the ball into a hazard you've made forward progress with that ball.  So the only difference with OB is the rule itself.  Since the question is whether the rule should be changed, that really misses the point.

 

I disagree, or perhaps you misunderstood what he was saying.

 

If you've hit the ball off the property (OB) you've not advanced the ball the same way a player who catches a football out of bounds does not advance the football.

 

If you hit the ball in the water you've advanced the ball.

 

The rules need to follow the fundamental "concept" of the game, and whether you've managed to advance the ball or not is fundamental to these particular rules.

post #59 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I disagree, or perhaps you misunderstood what he was saying.

 

If you've hit the ball off the property (OB) you've not advanced the ball the same way a player who catches a football out of bounds does not advance the football.

 

If you hit the ball in the water you've advanced the ball.

 

The rules need to follow the fundamental "concept" of the game, and whether you've managed to advance the ball or not is fundamental to these particular rules.

 

And a punt is advanced to the point that it goes OB.  If a receiver catches the ball with one foot out of bounds, the player is "in play" in college football but not the NFL.  Same sport, different rules.  Sometimes it matters where the feet are, sometimes where the ball is, sometimes whether the ball was on the ground or in the air.  

 

 

What is the fundamental concept about advancing the ball that stroke and distance is necessary to protect?  Nobody is suggesting that golfers should play it as it lies from OB, just that the penalty should be different.  

post #60 of 117

And regularly punters TRY to hit the punt OB because of the rule that allows for that.  That's a football rule that's just not applicable to golf.  A punt going OB at the one should be treated as a great punt and is because of the rule that allows for a punter to make the effort to do that.  A driver going OB 250 yards from the tee should be thought of in a different way than a shot into a water hazard because the hazard is in the field of play. 

post #61 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

It should definitely be more penal to hit a ball OB than to hit it in a hazard or unplayable lie.  when a course has boundaries and you go outside of them you haven't yet made any forward progress with that shot.  Sure, it would be easier if you had stroke but not distance penalties for OB but that gives you credit for yardage that wasn't actually gained.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I like the way you put that.

 

Except that if you hit the ball into a hazard you've made forward progress with that ball.  So the only difference with OB is the rule itself.  Since the question is whether the rule should be changed, that really misses the point.

 

The ball in the hazard is still a ball in play.  The ball out of bounds is not.  That is a fundamental definition in the game, and a fundamental difference between the two situations.  It is precisely the reason why they are treated differently, and why the experiment in the early 1960's was so brief.  

post #62 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

And regularly punters TRY to hit the punt OB because of the rule that allows for that.  That's a football rule that's just not applicable to golf.  A punt going OB at the one should be treated as a great punt and is because of the rule that allows for a punter to make the effort to do that.  A driver going OB 250 yards from the tee should be thought of in a different way than a shot into a water hazard because the hazard is in the field of play. 

Why?  If I hit the ball 250 yards into a lake how is that a better shot than one that goes 250 yards that ends up off the course or in a spot designated as being off the course on a certain hole.  You can't play either.  How is a shot that is way offline that definitely enters a LWH better than a shot that is close to a LWH that you can't find but you are not virtually certain it entered the LWH.  How about a shot that goes into the rough that you can't find?  Is that a worse shot than one that goes over a cliff on the edge of the ocean?  

 

I know that I am changing what MEfree meant when he started this poll, I think he wanted to make all three only stroke penalties not stroke and distance penalties.  The poll does say should they be the same though and I think they should.  The more I think about this the more I think that the problem lies with rules governing red stakes or LWH.  

 

If it wasn't for that rule you wouldn't have so many people think that stroke and distance is a draconian penalty.  You wouldn't think "wow that is harsh, if I had only hit into red stakes I would still get to keep some of the distance."   Getting to keep the distance wouldn't even enter your head, you would just know and accept "if you lose your ball you go back and hit again from where you played your last shot."  That is easy enough to understand and it would remove the uncertainty of where you ball crossed the stakes.  Whether you are virtually certain the ball did enter the LWH ecetra.

 

I can't think of a rule that comes into play as much as LWH does that is so open to interpretation.  Maybe because I mostly play with players that are as bad as I am but a ball usually enters a LWH several time a round playing with four people.  I bet if we had each player decide where to drop on their own we would get four different locations.  Sometimes we would also get differing opinions about whether their was virtual certainty that the ball did end up in a LWH.  for that reason alone I think the rule is problematic.  

 

Even pros have trouble with this, look at Tiger's drop at the players.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B5SL57mef4E?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If Tiger Woods leading a tournament on Sunday as prestigious as the Players can make a possibly incorrect determination in front of hundreds to thousands of spectators with aerial television replays while being watched by millions of people and no one can say definitively that it was a good drop or a bad drop there is something wrong with the rule.

 

I say get rid of red stakes or LWH, if you can find it you can play it, if not go back to your last shot and take your penalty.

post #63 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

And regularly punters TRY to hit the punt OB because of the rule that allows for that.  That's a football rule that's just not applicable to golf.  A punt going OB at the one should be treated as a great punt and is because of the rule that allows for a punter to make the effort to do that.   

 

That was my point, more or less.  The comparison between sports isn't really helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The ball in the hazard is still a ball in play.  The ball out of bounds is not.  That is a fundamental definition in the game, and a fundamental difference between the two situations.  It is precisely the reason why they are treated differently, and why the experiment in the early 1960's was so brief.  

 

This discussion would be more interesting if you could accept that you are not the only person with the mental capacity to understand the rules of golf.  I understand why the rules treat the two differently.  Allow yourself to consider the possibility that other people might have a different opinion AND that they might both be equally valid.

 

 

 

 

Or, you could just try larger font until everyone agrees with you.

post #64 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearMike View Post

And regularly punters TRY to hit the punt OB because of the rule that allows for that.  That's a football rule that's just not applicable to golf.  A punt going OB at the one should be treated as a great punt and is because of the rule that allows for a punter to make the effort to do that.   

 

That was my point, more or less.  The comparison between sports isn't really helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The ball in the hazard is still a ball in play.  The ball out of bounds is not.  That is a fundamental definition in the game, and a fundamental difference between the two situations.  It is precisely the reason why they are treated differently, and why the experiment in the early 1960's was so brief.  

 

This discussion would be more interesting if you could accept that you are not the only person with the mental capacity to understand the rules of golf.  I understand why the rules treat the two differently.  Allow yourself to consider the possibility that other people might have a different opinion AND that they might both be equally valid.

 

 

 

And maybe you could just accept that you are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it goes to the fundamentals of the game itself.  You say that you know the rules, but obviously you don't really understand what they mean or you wouldn't make such a poorly conceived comment.   You are never going to convince anyone with any depth of rules knowledge that those fundamental differences don't apply.  

post #65 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The ball in the hazard is still a ball in play.  The ball out of bounds is not.  That is a fundamental definition in the game, and a fundamental difference between the two situations.  It is precisely the reason why they are treated differently, and why the experiment in the early 1960's was so brief.  

My thinking is if the ball is in play but covered by 12' of water for all intent and purpose it is not a ball you can play.  It should be treated the same as a ball that is not in play.

post #66 of 117

Fourputt,  Just to be clear I have no problem with O.B., lost ball being stroke and distance, but I feel if the ball is lost wherever it is lost the penalty should be the same.  I don't think we would have as many complaints about the O.B./lost ball rule if their was no LWH, but I trust you and your knowledge of the rules so I will listen to what you have to say regarding the matter.

post #67 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad max View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

The ball in the hazard is still a ball in play.  The ball out of bounds is not.  That is a fundamental definition in the game, and a fundamental difference between the two situations.  It is precisely the reason why they are treated differently, and why the experiment in the early 1960's was so brief.  

My thinking is if the ball is in play but covered by 12' of water for all intent and purpose it is not a ball you can play.  It should be treated the same as a ball that is not in play.

 

A ball in an unplayable lie through the green is also a ball you can't play.  Should a player be required to take a stroke and distance penalty just because his ball rolled a couple of feet too far and got into some tree roots?  The ball in the hazard still has the potential to be playable if it isn't under 12 inches of water, while the ball out of bounds does not.  Again, a difference which is fundamental to the treatment of the two situations.

post #68 of 117
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

A ball in an unplayable lie through the green is also a ball you can't play.  Should a player be required to take a stroke and distance penalty just because his ball rolled a couple of feet too far and got into some tree roots?  The ball in the hazard still has the potential to be playable if it isn't under 12 inches of water, while the ball out of bounds does not.  Again, a difference which is fundamental to the treatment of the two situations.
no but their are a separate set Rules that govern this situation for one you found your ball, if you take unplayable you only get 2 club lengths to give yourself a shot. So you didn't hit the ball way off where you were supposed to. Please don't introduce unplayable's into this discussion you will just confuse me.
post #69 of 117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

And maybe you could just accept that you are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it goes to the fundamentals of the game itself.  You say that you know the rules, but obviously you don't really understand what they mean or you wouldn't make such a poorly conceived comment.   You are never going to convince anyone with any depth of rules knowledge that those fundamental differences don't apply.  

And it is your right to have that OPINION. Obviously guys like Jack Nicklaus, myself and dsc123 have different opinions. I feel that what makes golf the game it is goes way beyond any 1 or 2 rules. Jack may be biased because he does not want to see any of his majors reclassified as "major something other than golf championships" but he seems to feel the same way. Throughout the years, OB has been played as distance only up to distance plus a three stroke penalty. In my mind, it was still golf being played.
post #70 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

And it is your right to have that OPINION. Obviously guys like Jack Nicklaus, myself and dsc123 have different opinions. I feel that what makes golf the game it is goes way beyond any 1 or 2 rules. Jack may be biased because he does not want to see any of his majors reclassified as "major something other than golf championships" but he seems to feel the same way. Throughout the years, OB has been played as distance only up to distance plus a three stroke penalty. In my mind, it was still golf being played.

?????

Even with a complete rules overhaul no ones majors would be reclassified.

I lol at "guys like Jack and me"

Ha ha.
post #71 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

And maybe you could just accept that you are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it goes to the fundamentals of the game itself.  .  

 

 

 

The question is what the rule should be, not what it is; therefore, it asks for an opinion, not a recitation of the rule.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

You say that you know the rules, but obviously you don't really understand what they mean or you wouldn't make such a poorly conceived comment. You are never going to convince anyone with any depth of rules knowledge that those fundamental differences don't apply

 

Go back and read my post.  Its easier to create an opponent in your head and argue against it, but I'm not interested in taking up the imaginary cause you're trying to attribute to me.

 

I'm not even sure where I stand on MEfree's question.  I hate stroke and distance for a lost ball, but as others have said--if its lost you don't know where to drop from.  I think an interesting discussion could be had about that. With OB, I think some people have raised interesting points pro and con.  Since I'm interested in the discussion, I attempt to shoot down the arguments that just don't fly, in the hopes that the conversation can move to the more convincing points.  In the post you took issue with, I was making the point that whether or not the ball was advanced is just a result of the penalty assessed, not vice versa.  

 

There's room for an interesting discussion, but it keeps getting crowded out because people just repeat the same irrelevant points over and over again without considering that the other person's point of view may be valuable.  That's what I was trying to help move the conversation past.  Maybe its because MEfree has started so many posts about this topic that people just want it to stop.  But coming on here and insisting that anyone who disagrees with you simply isn't as smart as you is both wrong and counterproductive.  

post #72 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I disagree, or perhaps you misunderstood what he was saying.

 

If you've hit the ball off the property (OB) you've not advanced the ball the same way a player who catches a football out of bounds does not advance the football.

 

If you hit the ball in the water you've advanced the ball.

 

The rules need to follow the fundamental "concept" of the game, and whether you've managed to advance the ball or not is fundamental to these particular rules.

Excellent analogy.  I knew there was a reason we kept you around here. :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Poll: OB/Lost Ball vs. Hazard & Unplayable Lie Penalties