Out-of-Bounds Rule Change Discussion

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

ok, but what are the advantages of not being able to pick up your 2nd ball played from behind the hazard IF you find your 1st ball outside the hazard (that you honestly thought might be in the hazard)?  AKA, what are the advantages to having every player whose ball appears to roll off the back of the green at #17 bypass the drop area and take a look on the green just to make sure it didn`t roll into a blind spot?

This won`t happen a lot, but it will encourage players to take their drop in a timely manner in all situations (except possibly if they find it playable within the hazard) instead of going and searching to make sure they are not outside the hazard and then having to back-track every time.

I am not sure if you were referring to my length off the tee, but I have probably played this hole about 20 times, mostly from the blue tees but 3-5 times each from the black and white.  The only time I was close to putting it in the first lake was from the up tee when I thinned a 4i instead of hitting the normal 3 or 5w that I play from farther back.  Typically, I am happy to play whatever tees the guys I am playing with want to play and have yet to play with a guy (in CO) who consistently blows it by me.  I have seen a lot more guys in my group hit it into this water than I have.

This is a total non-issue on the course I grew up playing, but here is another hazard on the next hole, a par 3, which could cause a slow down if you don`t allow a player to play a WH provisional https://maps.google.com/maps?q=keystone+river+golf+course≪=39.600712,-105.990633&spn;=0.001817,0.004128&fb;=1≷=us&hq;=keystone+river+golf+course&radius;=15000&t;=h&z;=19&iwloc;=J

Depending on your line, the drop might have be on the tee side of the bridge.  The 1 time I hit it into this hazard, I thought I was WAY into the hazard with little chance to find it, but was surprised to find it in the trees within about 6 feet of the hazard line.  Going forward in a situation governed by the current rules of golf, I would insist upon looking for the ball first and only going back to the appropriate drop if I did not find the ball.

In a situation where this is a reasonable possibility, the rules allow the course to institute a local rule allowing a provisional ball.  The downside is that if the player uses that option, he no longer has the the other options under rule 26-1.  If he doesn't find his ball in play then he must continue play with the provisional ball.  No dropping back along the line or 2 clublengths from the margin.  It doesn't make sense to allow or use the local rule where the other options would be preferred.

The Rules of Golf are written for the most likely scenario, not for the least likely.  They still apply to both, but when the unlikely event occurs, then it may not be as simple to apply.  You simply cannot make the rules work perfectly for every imaginalble eventuality in a game contested on a playing field as as varied and complex as golf is.  Sometimes situations will occur where the application is a bit more awkward.  That is just how it's going to be.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In a situation where this is a reasonable possibility, the rules allow the course to institute a local rule allowing a provisional ball.  The downside is that if the player uses that option, he no longer has the the other options under rule 26-1.  If he doesn't find his ball in play then he must continue play with the provisional ball.  No dropping back along the line or 2 clublengths from the margin.  It doesn't make sense to allow or use the local rule where the other options would be preferred.

The Rules of Golf are written for the most likely scenario, not for the least likely.  They still apply to both, but when the unlikely event occurs, then it may not be as simple to apply.  You simply cannot make the rules work perfectly for every imaginalble eventuality in a game contested on a playing field as as varied and complex as golf is.  Sometimes situations will occur where the application is a bit more awkward.  That is just how it's going to be.

I don`t see the downside to having that as a regular rule as opposed to just a local rule.  I realize the part about losing the other options, but taking a provisional WH drop is still up to the player`s discretion, so it is his choice or not if he wants to forfeit the other options.  If he doesn`t want to forfeit the other options, he can not take a drop until he has had a look on the other side of the hazard just like under the current rules.  Giving the option of a provisional drop seems less penal to the player who wants to try to speed up play on the off chance he finds his original outside the other side of the hazard.

I agree that the rules should cover the most likely scenario over the least likely, but allowing the option of a provisional drop that becomes automatically in play if you don`t find your original outside the hazard seems to cover the most likely and the less likely scenario without any negative side effects.  What am I missing?

[upstategolfer]

What would prevent you from invoking 3-3 in such instances instead of 27-2?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by upstategolfer

What would prevent you from invoking 3-3 in such instances instead of 27-2?

Rule 3-3 allows you to play a second ball in stroke play where there is doubt as to what is the correct procedure, and you must finish the hole with both balls.  It isn't a catch-all for when you want to create an option which is not allowed under the rules.  In this case the procedure is not in doubt, only the location of the ball.  The rules cover this situation quite thoroughly, so 3-3 does not apply.

[upstategolfer]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Rule 3-3 allows you to play a second ball in stroke play where there is doubt as to what is the correct procedure, and you must finish the hole with both balls.  It isn't a catch-all for when you want to create an option which is not allowed under the rules.  In this case the procedure is not in doubt, only the location of the ball.  The rules cover this situation quite thoroughly, so 3-3 does not apply.

Not true, see decision 3-3/8, so it seems to me quite legal to invoke 3-3, play a 2nd ball indicating you wish the first ball to count if it is found, and if it's not, continue playing the 2nd ball and abandon the first, or if the first ball is found, you may then abandon the 2nd without penalty.

And to me it is the procedure that is in doubt, because not knowing if the ball is playable creates doubt as to whether to proceed from the tee box or from a location afforded by the hazard rule.

Might be a stretch, but it allows for the play of a 2nd ball to speed up play within the rules. Let's not forget, this is a casual round of golf.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by upstategolfer

Might be a stretch, but it allows for the play of a 2nd ball to speed up play within the rules. Let's not forget, this is a casual round of golf.

Either the rules apply or they don't. "Casual round of golf" is not in the Rules.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I actually think that the course designer should be able to penalize a player for hitting it on the wrong fairway/hole.

While I have certainly benefited from it, it never made sense to me that a shot that is a bit off line on some holes can wind up in the rough or trees while a shot further off line in the same direction can have a wide open shot from an adjacent fairway.  Fairness aside, having an adjacent hole considered a forced drop (like an ESA hazard)  or OB will improve safety by preventing people from hitting off the wrong fairway.  I know it is not in the rules, but again, I think course designers should have this option available.

Interesting point, but I take a more Darwinian view: let those who end up on the wrong fairway (as I sometimes do myself, tho' much less often than I used to .....) assume the added risk to life-and-limb.  Surely the golfing population will be strengthened  as a result of such natural selection process ....

Seriously:  how common is it for white stakes to be put between fairways to avoid this problem?  I have never seen this done myself.  Personally I would take a dim view and would probably never play that course again. Which is probably why you don't see it very much - because of errant golfers like me who would take their money elsewhere.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Chas

Seriously:  how common is it for white stakes to be put between fairways to avoid this problem?  I have never seen this done myself.  Personally I would take a dim view and would probably never play that course again. Which is probably why you don't see it very much - because of errant golfers like me who would take their money elsewhere.

On the previous club I was a member, there was one internal OB. If I remember correctly, I only hit once in 50 rounds there. These two adjacent holes are slight doglegs, one left and coming back to the right. So the dogleg left has this internal OB on left side to prevent cutting the corner. I do not see this as a problem, I just treat this as a normal OB. There is lot of room on right side to slice your drives, and it is not that narrow.

[upstategolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Either the rules apply or they don't. "Casual round of golf" is not in the Rules.

Do you have anything constructive to dispute invoking 3-3 or not? I think 3-3 gives an out in this instance because you don't know how to proceed with your round since you don't know for sure if it's in the hazard and, if it is, then you'd have to come back to the tee box to hit again. Invoking 3-3 allows you to search for your ball and, if not found, proceed by playing the 2nd ball and abandoning the first. I think it's a very good solution, for the casual round of golf. In tournament golf you're not under the same pressure to maintain the pace of play for others enjoyment of the game that day, so you can go forward, search, if not found, return and tee again.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by upstategolfer

Do you have anything constructive to dispute invoking 3-3 or not? I think 3-3 gives an out in this instance because you don't know how to proceed with your round since you don't know for sure if it's in the hazard and, if it is, then you'd have to come back to the tee box to hit again. Invoking 3-3 allows you to search for your ball and, if not found, proceed by playing the 2nd ball and abandoning the first. I think it's a very good solution, for the casual round of golf. In tournament golf you're not under the same pressure to maintain the pace of play for others enjoyment of the game that day, so you can go forward, search, if not found, return and tee again.

Agree that Erik has a tendency to latch onto the weakest part of your post and ignore the more relevant part at times.

My opinion is that 3-3 does not apply, although I am not 100% sure of this.  I base this mostly on 2 factors- 1.  The island green example I gave was straight from the decisions which said you were forced to play your 2nd ball and pick up your first.  2.  3-3 makes reference to it not being a provisional ball (albeit not exactly  as you propose).

With that said, I see benefit without any potential harm if a player was allowed to play a WH provisional.  As Fourputt said, the USGA permits courses to allow this as a local rule, but to me it makes sense to have it as a regular USGA rule. Can anyone come up with a reason why they don`t have this as a regular rule?

[upstategolfer]

Yes, there were some decisions on 3-3 that make it hard to justify it in this situation, but my point is that there is an allowance within the rules to play two balls while considering only one score for that hole. If it is your intent to put two balls in play because your unsure of how to proceed off the tee box and not so that you have two shots to choose from, then I think you'd be ok. In nearly every case you would want to find the first shot regardless because you're lying one instead of three.

Again, I'm just trying to have an allowance in existing rules to cover this particular "what if" for casual play, and I think it's easier done invoking 3-3 than by changing the RoG as written. For tournament play, you'd go back and re-tee.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by upstategolfer

Do you have anything constructive to dispute invoking 3-3 or not? I think 3-3 gives an out in this instance because you don't know how to proceed with your round since you don't know for sure if it's in the hazard and, if it is, then you'd have to come back to the tee box to hit again. Invoking 3-3 allows you to search for your ball and, if not found, proceed by playing the 2nd ball and abandoning the first. I think it's a very good solution, for the casual round of golf. In tournament golf you're not under the same pressure to maintain the pace of play for others enjoyment of the game that day, so you can go forward, search, if not found, return and tee again.

3-3 is irrelevant.

The rules regarding water hazards already cover what you do if you're not virtually certain the ball is in the hazard. If you're not certain, and you can't find the ball, it's lost. If you're certain, you play another ball and it's immediately the ball in play.

There's no such thing as a "casual" round of golf under the Rules. You're either playing a round of golf or you're not. Will I care if we're not playing a tournament and you drop a ball, then say "oh, here is my first one, it didn't go in the hazard after all!" and play that first ball out for a score? Nope, not really.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Agree that Erik has a tendency to latch onto the weakest part of your post and ignore the more relevant part at times.

If it's weak don't post it. :) It only distracts from the point you're trying to make.

Originally Posted by MEfree

My opinion is that 3-3 does not apply, although I am not 100% sure of this.  I base this mostly on 2 factors- 1.  The island green example I gave was straight from the decisions which said you were forced to play your 2nd ball and pick up your first.  2.  3-3 makes reference to it not being a provisional ball (albeit not exactly  as you propose).

Right. 3-3 is for when there's uncertainty about the application of the rules. There's no uncertainty (if there is, it's because you don't know or don't want to follow the rules, not because the ruling itself is uncertain) in this scenario.

If you tried to apply 3-3 to this scenario you'd hit two balls from the drop area, or play two balls - one perhaps re-teed and one from the drop area, for example if you didn't know if the drop area was available to you to play from or if it was only for shots which carried into a different part of the hazard or something. Or you might play from two drop areas because you aren't sure which was closer or the correct one. Either way you'd play out those second balls (you were hitting 3 when you hit them), and the first ball is STILL abandoned.

3-3 isn't "doubt as to whether the ball is in the water hazard" it's "doubt as to procedure," and "doubt as to procedure" isn't really a cut-and-dry (no pun intended) application of the water hazard rule.

Originally Posted by MEfree

With that said, I see benefit without any potential harm if a player was allowed to play a WH provisional.  As Fourputt said, the USGA permits courses to allow this as a local rule, but to me it makes sense to have it as a regular USGA rule.  Can anyone come up with a reason why they don`t have this as a regular rule?

It's very simple, and it has to do with the simple idea of having one ball in play at any given moment.

If a player hits his ball near OB or where it may be lost, if he finds the ball in bounds, then that ball is in play. If he doesn't, his provisional immediately becomes the ball in play.

If a player hits a ball on a par three near a creek, then hits a "provisional" to two inches, then finds his original ball, he's got a "choice" between two balls that are basically "in play."

THAT is why there's a rule against provisionals except for lost/OB balls. If the ball is lost or OB, you're NOT ALLOWED to play it. It's "out of play" and the provisional becomes "in play."

You can't have players deciding which of their multiple shots they want to play.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by upstategolfer

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Either the rules apply or they don't. "Casual round of golf" is not in the Rules.

Do you have anything constructive to dispute invoking 3-3 or not? I think 3-3 gives an out in this instance because you don't know how to proceed with your round since you don't know for sure if it's in the hazard and, if it is, then you'd have to come back to the tee box to hit again. Invoking 3-3 allows you to search for your ball and, if not found, proceed by playing the 2nd ball and abandoning the first. I think it's a very good solution, for the casual round of golf. In tournament golf you're not under the same pressure to maintain the pace of play for others enjoyment of the game that day, so you can go forward, search, if not found, return and tee again.

No it doesn't.  3-3 is specifically to help when there is uncertainty about the rules , not when there is uncertainty as to the location of the ball.
There are plenty of rules to apply to the situation when the location of the ball is unknown or uncertain.  In the unlikely scenario as presented to begin this argument, it was stated that it was virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard.  That means that he was not uncertain about either procedure or ball location.  When he played a second ball from a drop area, by rule it became the ball in play, period.  End of discussion.

If he had been in a situation where a provisional ball was allowed, it would still have to have been played from the tee, the same place where the original ball was played, not from a drop area.  The second ball must also be declared as a provisional ball before the stroke is made or is is NOT a provisional ball.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Chas

Interesting point, but I take a more Darwinian view: let those who end up on the wrong fairway (as I sometimes do myself, tho' much less often than I used to .....) assume the added risk to life-and-limb.  Surely the golfing population will be strengthened  as a result of such natural selection process ....

Seriously:  how common is it for white stakes to be put between fairways to avoid this problem?  I have never seen this done myself.  Personally I would take a dim view and would probably never play that course again. Which is probably why you don't see it very much - because of errant golfers like me who would take their money elsewhere.

My club used to host a PGA event years ago and, by the second year, the pros figured out that they had a better angle to both of the greens on adjacent holes from the respecitve adjacent fairways. After a few years of it, the PGA told us that we needed to make a local rule and put OB stakes in between the two holes during the tournament. We never did it otherwise.

[upstategolfer]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No it doesn't.  3-3 is specifically to help when there is uncertainty about the rules, not when there is uncertainty as to the location of the ball.

There are plenty of rules to apply to the situation when the location of the ball is unknown or uncertain.  In the unlikely scenario as presented to begin this argument, it was stated that it was virtually certain that the ball was in the hazard.  That means that he was not uncertain about either procedure or ball location.  When he played a second ball from a drop area, by rule it became the ball in play, period.  End of discussion.

If he had been in a situation where a provisional ball was allowed, it would still have to have been played from the tee, the same place where the original ball was played, not from a drop area.  The second ball must also be declared as a provisional ball before the stroke is made or is is NOT a provisional ball.

Yes, but you thought that you had to play out with both balls if you invoked 3-3, which I've shown to be incorrect...so I'm afraid without a reference from the RoG backing up your opinion here, it must be taken as simply that, your opinion and not fact.

Sorry.

[upstategolfer]

Was thinking about this some more on the drive home, and it strikes me that actually this would be a simple way to incorporate this situation into the rules, and I admit up front I need to do a bit of research, but off hand you could simply put in a rule that if you put into play a new ball because you were virtually certain that the first was lost or in a hazard, and then find that the first ball was not, that no strokes made on the 2nd ball count, it must be abandoned, and play continue with the first ball. Make this a rule on it's own, and have it take precedence over any rule where there was any doubt as to the condition of the first ball (or original ball in play).

Simple enough.

[David in FL]

Was thinking about this some more on the drive home, and it strikes me that actually this would be a simple way to incorporate this situation into the rules, and I admit up front I need to do a bit of research, but off hand you could simply put in a rule that if you put into play a new ball because you were virtually certain that the first was lost or in a hazard, and then find that the first ball was not, that no strokes made on the 2nd ball count, it must be abandoned, and play continue with the first ball. Make this a rule on it's own, and have it take precedence over any rule where there was any doubt as to the condition of the first ball (or original ball in play). Simple enough.

You want to incorporate a new rule to change a rule with which you don't happen to agree. Is that it? :-\

[upstategolfer]

Originally Posted by David in FL

You want to incorporate a new rule to change a rule with which you don't happen to agree. Is that it?

It's called "having a discussion".

I don't see the purpose in penalizing a player simply because he's lost track of his ball in a manner as described here. Allow him to play forward under the assumption that it is lost, and if it is discovered that it is not lost, remove all strokes made on the replacement ball and continue with the original. It's not really creating a new rule per say, you could do it simply by extending the provisional rule to cover these circumstances. Why is that a negative for the game? In other words, discuss the merits, or lack there of, of the idea.