Out-of-Bounds Rule Change Discussion

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

This is a key reason for not changing any rules for such an ambiguous reason as pace of play.  Most casual players only have the most tenuous grip on the rules anyway, and don't care to know any more.  That is even true of many who may be more well versed in the rules, but still don't feel that they are important in everyday play.  Why make changes aimed at helping those players who don't care in the first place (and possibly create inconsistencies in the rules by doing so)?

Most players only develop any sort if interest or expertise in the rules after they discover the fun and challenge of competitive golf.  By that I don't mean just statewide or citywide tournaments, but well organized monthly club competitions should attract ones interest in correct play.  After a player embarrasses himself through ignorance a couple of times in competitions, he usually gets a better appreciation of the rules.

If he's anything like me, he begins to understand that there is a base logic or foundation for most of the commonly encountered playing rules, a logic that reaches all the way back to those original 13 rules.  It's not that easy to just make a knee jerk change without going counter to those underlying principles.  This is why rule changes only come about slowly and with much discussion between the joint rules committees of the USGA and the R&A.;

I think you are looking at the wrong end of the horse.

I bet more people would know and follow the rules of golf if we still only had the original 13 that could fit onto 1 sheet of paper.  Now I think that just 3 rules (26-28 covering hazards, OOBs and unplayables) are over 1700 words and that does not include the accompanying decisions related to those rules.

Like the tax code, it seems like pages of words with new rules and clarifications are added over the years, but are never simplified.  Golf is recreation for most people- if someone thinks that they can read a single sheet of paper that contains all the basic rules, then I think they are much more apt to do this as opposed the current situation where learning the rules is similar to studying for the bar exam.

Whenever you have a rule book (or tax code) that gets constantly added to, but never simplified, I think it is a good idea to step back periodically and start with a clean slate based on the experience that you have with the rules and start from scratch with the most basic and important elements in as simplified form as possible while keeping in mind known loopholes that people tried to exploit in the past.

In many ways, the original 13 rules still make a lot of sense and might be superior to the current rules (i.e. you got to tee your ball up behind a hazard after taking a stroke penalty which is what I see many players effectively do when they fluff their lie after dropping a ball), but in other ways they may not take into account modern technology (much harder for walkers to go back to where they hit from with today`s distances).

Tournament golf at all levels (pros, college, am, high school) can be quite slow on difficult courses, especially when played in foursomes.  Changing the rules will not solve this completely, but it might help a bit.  One of the few times I no carded in a Jr tournament was when I hit the ball down the middle of a fairway late in a poor round and couldn`t be bothered walking back to the tee when I did not find it.  Look how often PGA Tour players ask for rulings- much of this could be avoided without compromising the skill required or integrity of the game.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think you are looking at the wrong end of the horse.

I bet more people would know and follow the rules of golf if we still only had the original 13 that could fit onto 1 sheet of paper.  Now I think that just 3 rules (26-28 covering hazards, OOBs and unplayables) are over 1700 words and that does not include the accompanying decisions related to those rules.

Like the tax code, it seems like pages of words with new rules and clarifications are added over the years, but are never simplified.  Golf is recreation for most people- if someone thinks that they can read a single sheet of paper that contains all the basic rules, then I think they are much more apt to do this as opposed the current situation where learning the rules is similar to studying for the bar exam.

Whenever you have a rule book (or tax code) that gets constantly added to, but never simplified, I think it is a good idea to step back periodically and start with a clean slate based on the experience that you have with the rules and start from scratch with the most basic and important elements in as simplified form as possible while keeping in mind known loopholes that people tried to exploit in the past.

In many ways, the original 13 rules still make a lot of sense and might be superior to the current rules (i.e. you got to tee your ball up behind a hazard after taking a stroke penalty which is what I see many players effectively do when they fluff their lie after dropping a ball), but in other ways they may not take into account modern technology (much harder for walkers to go back to where they hit from with today`s distances).

Tournament golf at all levels (pros, college, am, high school) can be quite slow on difficult courses, especially when played in foursomes.  Changing the rules will not solve this completely, but it might help a bit.  One of the few times I no carded in a Jr tournament was when I hit the ball down the middle of a fairway late in a poor round and couldn`t be bothered walking back to the tee when I did not find it.  Look how often PGA Tour players ask for rulings- much of this could be avoided without compromising the skill required or integrity of the game.

You point out how to do it without inconsistency, paradox, or confusion.  And still have the game look like golf, and be playable in every sort of terrain around the world.  And good luck with that project.

Tour players know the rules and procedures.  Most of the time when they ask for rulings, it's just because they can, not because they need to.  I worked for 4 years at The International at Castle Pines as a hole marshal on #17.  I saw dozens of rulings, both on my hole and on other holes when wandering the course on breaks.  I also saw even more times when players just took their drops without anything more than just checking with the competitor playing with them.  All they want is to be certain that they have it right, and in some cases the point of reference for a drop may not be obvious, so they cover themselves by getting an official ruling.  Quite often, even when they have called in an official, the player explains what he plans to do and the official just tells him whether or not the plan is within the rules.  What you see on TV is a miniscule part of what goes on throughout a 4 day event.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You point out how to do it without inconsistency, paradox, or confusion.  And still have the game look like golf, and be playable in every sort of terrain around the world.  And good luck with that project.

Tour players know the rules and procedures.  Most of the time when they ask for rulings, it's just because they can, not because they need to.  I worked for 4 years at The International at Castle Pines as a hole marshal on #17.  I saw dozens of rulings, both on my hole and on other holes when wandering the course on breaks.  I also saw even more times when players just took their drops without anything more than just checking with the competitor playing with them.  All they want is to be certain that they have it right, and in some cases the point of reference for a drop may not be obvious, so they cover themselves by getting an official ruling.  Quite often, even when they have called in an official, the player explains what he plans to do and the official just tells him whether or not the plan is within the rules.  What you see on TV is a miniscule part of what goes on throughout a 4 day event.

I guarantee that I could come up with rules that are less confusing and more consistent (using a normal definition of the word) than the current rules of golf.

How often do you think the average pro hits it OOB, into a hazard or loses a ball in their typical round?  I have caddied at Monday qualifiers and attended PGA/Nationwide Tour events and would say that they don`t do it very often.

Changing how these are played would have much more effect on higher cappers, but it would still look like golf for both pros and lesser players.  I will stand by my statement that you are looking at the wrong end of the horse if you think that the essence of golf is what is written in the current rule book.  Most on this site agree that the majority of players don`t follow all the rules- I might agree with you that they aren`t playing by the rules, but I am not going to try to tell them that they aren`t playing golf.

While it makes sense to have free drops regulated more strictly, I don`t see the harm in more leniency when there is a penalty stroke/drop being taken.  Sure a favorable drop or elimination of stroke and distance may result in less of a penalty, but every pro and good player out there will still be trying to avoid any sort of penalty situations.

I presume that the game looked like golf when the first 13 rules came out on 1 page, so I don`t know why it wouldn`t look like golf if the current rules were simplified a bit.  The length of tee shots may be double or triple the original distances, but I see no reason why the rules need to be 50 or 100 times longer.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I guarantee that I could come up with rules that are less confusing and more consistent (using a normal definition of the word) than the current rules of golf.

How often do you think the average pro hits it OOB, into a hazard or loses a ball in their typical round?  I have caddied at Monday qualifiers and attended PGA/Nationwide Tour events and would say that they don`t do it very often.

Changing how these are played would have much more effect on higher cappers, but it would still look like golf for both pros and lesser players.  I will stand by my statement that you are looking at the wrong end of the horse if you think that the essence of golf is what is written in the current rule book.  Most on this site agree that the majority of players don`t follow all the rules- I might agree with you that they aren`t playing by the rules, but I am not going to try to tell them that they aren`t playing golf.

While it makes sense to have free drops regulated more strictly, I don`t see the harm in more leniency when there is a penalty stroke/drop being taken.  Sure a favorable drop or elimination of stroke and distance may result in less of a penalty, but every pro and good player out there will still be trying to avoid any sort of penalty situations.

I presume that the game looked like golf when the first 13 rules came out on 1 page, so I don`t know why it wouldn`t look like golf if the current rules were simplified a bit.  The length of tee shots may be double or triple the original distances, but I see no reason why the rules need to be 50 or 100 times longer.

The trouble is that those 13 rules didn't get the job done.  That's why the initial 13 rules didn't last very long even then, back when virtually all golf was being played in Scotland and many of the needs of the modern game hadn't yet been discovered.  As I said earlier, virtually all play back then was in match play, and when the players involved in a match came across a situation which wasn't covered in the rules, they decided what to do between themselves.  They were the only players affected, there were no handicaps, no large fields competing in stroke play, so it didn't matter a lot that the rules didn't cover every eventuality.  Most of the time they could arrive at an agreement in a gentlemanly fashion.  If they couldn't resolve the issue, then they took it to the club committee after they finished play and the committee made the ruling.  Match play still works that way today.

Now we have stroke play competitions with large fields requiring the protection of a comprehensive set of rules.  Even when not playing in a competitions, many of us return scores for handicaps, and those must also be played by a common and consistent rule book.  As it is, US and European handicaps don't really match up very well, simply because the handicap procedures are only slightly different.  If we were trying to play by an abbreviated rule book and relying on committee decisions to resolve issues which the rules don't address, then the handicaps wouldn't even be based on the same game and never mind the different procedural issues.

Relief and drop procedures are quite simple and straightforward as it is.  I don't really see what your point is there.  If there is an issue it's just because too many players never bother to learn them, not because they can't learn them.  And for casual play (even if returning the score for handicap) it really doesn't matter if they miss a drop by a couple of feet.  But if they take that attitude into a competition, they will find a very different environment, so why not learn it and do it right in the first place?  The rules which apply to general play are really quite simple to learn and to play by.  I just don't understand why people try to make them so difficult.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The trouble is that those 13 rules didn't get the job done.  That's why the initial 13 rules didn't last very long even then, back when virtually all golf was being played in Scotland and many of the needs of the modern game hadn't yet been discovered.  As I said earlier, virtually all play back then was in match play, and when the players involved in a match came across a situation which wasn't covered in the rules, they decided what to do between themselves.  They were the only players affected, there were no handicaps, no large fields competing in stroke play, so it didn't matter a lot that the rules didn't cover every eventuality.  Most of the time they could arrive at an agreement in a gentlemanly fashion.  If they couldn't resolve the issue, then they took it to the club committee after they finished play and the committee made the ruling.  Match play still works that way today.

Now we have stroke play competitions with large fields requiring the protection of a comprehensive set of rules.  Even when not playing in a competitions, many of us return scores for handicaps, and those must also be played by a common and consistent rule book.  As it is, US and European handicaps don't really match up very well, simply because the handicap procedures are only slightly different.  If we were trying to play by an abbreviated rule book and relying on committee decisions to resolve issues which the rules don't address, then the handicaps wouldn't even be based on the same game and never mind the different procedural issues.

Relief and drop procedures are quite simple and straightforward as it is.  I don't really see what your point is there.  If there is an issue it's just because too many players never bother to learn them, not because they can't learn them.  And for casual play (even if returning the score for handicap) it really doesn't matter if they miss a drop by a couple of feet.  But if they take that attitude into a competition, they will find a very different environment, so why not learn it and do it right in the first place?  The rules which apply to general play are really quite simple to learn and to play by.  I just don't understand why people try to make them so difficult.

I agree with much of what you say, but not your final  conclusion.

Agree with:

Original 13 rules were not perfect.

Rules should be comprehensive and straightforward enough that the committee is rarely asked to make a decision

The main problem I have is that some of the rules are counter intuitive to the newbie.  As examples, how do you think the average beginner (and many more experienced golfers) would play/score the following:

1.  Find their ball in the middle of a large bush for which there is no relief within 2 club lengths or going straight backwards, but with relief available going 20 feet to the left or right, no nearer the hole.

2.  A player is 90% certain that his ball went into a lake, but did not see it splash and can`t find the ball.

3.  A player hits his ball into a river crossing the middle of the fairway and sees a splash- upon arriving at the river, he sees it has a strong current that flows towards a big lake that is outside the golf course property and gives up looking for his new ball figuring it must have been washed away.

4.  3 newbies are playing a round- 1st hits into a hazard 50 yards in front of the tee, 2nd tops it 10 yards to the front of the teeing area, 3rd whiffs completely.  All 3 re-hit from the tee.

When you say that " Most of the time they could arrive at an agreement in a gentlemanly fashion... match play still works that way today" what do you mean?  In my examples above, could match play competitors agree to:

1.  Allow a drop 20 feet away, no nearer the hole with a 1 stroke penalty?

2.  Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the lake because the ball is probably in the lake?

3.  Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the river because the ball entered the hazard before being washed away by the current?

4.  All agree to start the hole over lying the same amount?

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I guarantee that I could come up with rules that are less confusing and more consistent (using a normal definition of the word) than the current rules of golf..

Lets us see how you rewrite rules 23 & 25 and cover all the situations in the associated decisions.

Or start with an easier task - pick your own rule to rewrite.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I agree with much of what you say, but not your final  conclusion.

Agree with:

Original 13 rules were not perfect.

Rules should be comprehensive and straightforward enough that the committee is rarely asked to make a decision

The main problem I have is that some of the rules are counter intuitive to the newbie.  As examples, how do you think the average beginner (and many more experienced golfers) would play/score the following:

1.  Find their ball in the middle of a large bush for which there is no relief within 2 club lengths or going straight backwards, but with relief available going 20 feet to the left or right, no nearer the hole.

2.  A player is 90% certain that his ball went into a lake, but did not see it splash and can`t find the ball.

3.  A player hits his ball into a river crossing the middle of the fairway and sees a splash- upon arriving at the river, he sees it has a strong current that flows towards a big lake that is outside the golf course property and gives up looking for his new ball figuring it must have been washed away.

4.  3 newbies are playing a round- 1st hits into a hazard 50 yards in front of the tee, 2nd tops it 10 yards to the front of the teeing area, 3rd whiffs completely.  All 3 re-hit from the tee.

When you say that "Most of the time they could arrive at an agreement in a gentlemanly fashion...match play still works that way today" what do you mean?  In my examples above, could match play competitors agree to:

1.  Allow a drop 20 feet away, no nearer the hole with a 1 stroke penalty?

2.  Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the lake because the ball is probably in the lake?

3.  Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the river because the ball entered the hazard before being washed away by the current?

4.  All agree to start the hole over lying the same amount?

1. Find their ball in the middle of a large bush for which there is no relief within 2 club lengths or going straight backwards, but with relief available going 20 feet to the left or right, no nearer the hole.

There is nothing in Rule 28 which says that you are entitled to "relief".  You are allowed to move your ball under 3 prescribed options, but any relief obtained is determined by the terrain and the option choosen.

2. A player is 90% certain that his ball went into a lake, but did not see it splash and can`t find the ball.

The ball is lost.  He should have played a provisional ball.

3. A player hits his ball into a river crossing the middle of the fairway and sees a splash- upon arriving at the river, he sees it has a strong current that flows towards a big lake that is outside the golf course property and gives up looking for his new ball figuring it must have been washed away.

From what I read in Decision 26-1/7 (the ball in the decision has been found OB) is that it's a question of fact that the ball has been moved out of bounds.   If it is known or virtually certain that the ball entered the hazard in bounds, and there is nowhere else in that area where the ball can be lost outside of the hazard, then unless it is a very small river and a submerged ball would still be easily visible, you can't punish the player by simply assuming that the ball has moved out of bounds.  Water flowing that fast generally has a rocky bottom which could easily trap a ball, so I don't see any other option but to proceed under Rule 26-1.  I've hit into fast flowing rivers many times and found the ball caught in a pocket in the rocks - often in the company of a dozen or more other balls.  If the ball is found out of bounds, then he goes back to where he last played from and drops under stroke and distance.

4. 3 newbies are playing a round- 1st hits into a hazard 50 yards in front of the tee, 2nd tops it 10 yards to the front of the teeing area, 3rd whiffs completely. All 3 re-hit from the tee.

I don't understand the question.  Players 1and 2 are lying 3 and player 3 is lying 2.  So what?

When you say that " Most of the time they could arrive at an agreement in a gentlemanly fashion... match play still works that way today" what do you mean? In my examples above, could match play competitors agree to:

1. Allow a drop 20 feet away, no nearer the hole with a 1 stroke penalty?

2. Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the lake because the ball is probably in the lake?

3. Take a drop with a 1 stroke penalty behind the river because the ball entered the hazard before being washed away by the current?

4. All agree to start the hole over lying the same amount?

The answer to questions 1,2 and 4 is "It depends."  If they didn't know any better then once again, in match play they are the only players affected by there decisions.  If they knew better then they are disqualified in each case under Rule 1-3 for agreeing to waive a rule of golf.  Player #3 will have a score higher than what he should have, but there is nothing in the rules preventing him from making that mistake.

Question 3 I answered above, and my answer doesn't change.  They still have to have some evidence that the current washed the ball away.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I guarantee that I could come up with rules that are less confusing and more consistent (using a normal definition of the word) than the current rules of golf.

Go for it. You might make a lot of money.

You won't succeed, unless your version of "success" is really very different than how I'm reading that statement.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Changing how these are played would have much more effect on higher cappers, but it would still look like golf for both pros and lesser players.  I will stand by my statement that you are looking at the wrong end of the horse if you think that the essence of golf is what is written in the current rule book.  Most on this site agree that the majority of players don`t follow all the rules- I might agree with you that they aren`t playing by the rules, but I am not going to try to tell them that they aren`t playing golf.

They aren't. But the thing is they don't really care. Nor do I.

But they're not playing golf. They're playing a game that resembles golf.

Originally Posted by MEfree

While it makes sense to have free drops regulated more strictly, I don`t see the harm in more leniency when there is a penalty stroke/drop being taken.  Sure a favorable drop or elimination of stroke and distance may result in less of a penalty, but every pro and good player out there will still be trying to avoid any sort of penalty situations.

Why? Simply for the sake of it? You have three options, usually. Why do you want to change one of them? What's it matter if you're two clublengths away or four? And the average dude doesn't follow the rules right now - they're not going to follow your rules either.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I presume that the game looked like golf when the first 13 rules came out on 1 page, so I don`t know why it wouldn`t look like golf if the current rules were simplified a bit.  The length of tee shots may be double or triple the original distances, but I see no reason why the rules need to be 50 or 100 times longer.

Those 13 rules were changed awfully quickly as well once people started playing the game a bit more broadly. EVERY sport's rules started out as much simpler versions of themselves.

If you want a model for how rules could be written, go here: http://www.pdga.com/rules . You'll find that they have rules written that includes language like, well, here's a direct quote:

" You can always ask people to move themselves or their stuff if they are in your way."

Why do Rules get longer? Because what is "their stuff"? What if they don't want to move themselves? HOW should they move "their stuff" (like if it's the ball in play)? Disc Golf hasn't come upon these situations yet, but they will, and their rules will get more and more complex and longer as things go along. And like golf, disc golf rules aren't followed very closely by the average players either. They play a loose approximation but they don't follow them to the letter at all.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Rules should be comprehensive and straightforward enough that the committee is rarely asked to make a decision

The bold word is going to be your problem and the reason you would fail on your guarantee.

Originally Posted by MEfree

The main problem I have is that some of the rules are counter intuitive to the newbie.

Who cares? The newbie is not following the rules anyway. They're picking up half the time and just trying to not whiff.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

2. A player is 90% certain that his ball went into a lake, but did not see it splash and can`t find the ball.

The ball is lost.  He should have played a provisional ball.

3. A player hits his ball into a river crossing the middle of the fairway and sees a splash- upon arriving at the river, he sees it has a strong current that flows towards a big lake that is outside the golf course property and gives up looking for his new ball figuring it must have been washed away.

From what I read in Decision 26-1/7 (the ball in the decision has been found OB) is that it's a question of fact that the ball has been moved out of bounds.   If it is known or virtually certain that the ball entered the hazard in bounds, and there is nowhere else in that area where the ball can be lost outside of the hazard, then unless it is a very small river and a submerged ball would still be easily visible, you can't punish the player by simply assuming that the ball has moved out of bounds.  Water flowing that fast generally has a rocky bottom which could easily trap a ball, so I don't see any other option but to proceed under Rule 26-1.  I've hit into fast flowing rivers many times and found the ball caught in a pocket in the rocks - often in the company of a dozen or more other balls.  If the ball is found out of bounds, then he goes back to where he last played from and drops under stroke and distance.

I don`t understand why 2 & 3 would be played differently.  In 3, I agree that you can`t be virtually certain the ball is out, but you can`t be virtually certain that the ball stayed in the hazard either.  I base this on decision 26-1/1 http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#26-1/1 which says, in part

" It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.... Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

I have a problem with the USGA`s definition of virtually certainty as I think the level of certainty required to reach virtually certainty can vary among players.  What is the amount of doubt that is allowed before it is justifiable to conclude "that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard?"  If they said there is nowhere else that the ball is LIKELY to be, then some doubt seems permissible.  OTOH, saying that there is nowhere else it could be seems easily disproved by coming up with any remotely possible scenario which would have the ball elsewhere.

How about this one- You hit a ball onto the island green at #17 at Sawgrass and see the ball roll and disappear off the back of the green.  You are virtually certain that it is in the water and play a shot from the drop area on your way to the green.  Upon arriving at the green to putt out your second ball, you find your original ball sitting on the back fringe in a sprinkler head depression.  How do you proceed?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

I don`t understand why 2 & 3 would be played differently.  In 3, I agree that you can`t be virtually certain the ball is out, but you can`t be virtually certain that the ball stayed in the hazard either.  I base this on decision 26-1/1 http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#26-1/1 which says, in part

" It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.... Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

I have a problem with the USGA`s definition of virtually certainty as I think the level of certainty required to reach virtually certainty can vary among players.  What is the amount of doubt that is allowed before it is justifiable to conclude "that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard?"  If they said there is nowhere else that the ball is LIKELY to be, then some doubt seems permissible.  OTOH, saying that there is nowhere else it could be seems easily disproved by coming up with any remotely possible scenario which would have the ball elsewhere.

How about this one- You hit a ball onto the island green at #17 at Sawgrass and see the ball roll and disappear off the back of the green.  You are virtually certain that it is in the water and play a shot from the drop area on your way to the green.  Upon arriving at the green to putt out your second ball, you find your original ball sitting on the back fringe in a sprinkler head depression.  How do you proceed?

Quote:

you can`t be virtually certain that the ball stayed in the hazard...

" It is important that all readily accessible information be considered because, for example, the mere fact that a ball has splashed in a water hazard would not always provide "knowledge" that the ball is in the water hazard, as there are instances when a ball may skip out of, and come to rest outside, the hazard.... Unlike "knowledge," "virtual certainty" implies some small degree of doubt about the actual location of a ball that has not been found. However, "virtual certainty" also means that, although the ball has not been found, when all readily available information is considered, the conclusion that there is nowhere that the ball could be except in the water hazard would be justified."

I'm well aware of that second paragraph.  I've seen balls skip out of water many times.  Since you didn't state it, I assumed that there was no deep rough or any place else where the ball could have been lost outside of the hazard, so it would be deemed to be in the hazard, and since you also couldn't assume that the current would take it out of bounds, then you proceed under Rule 26-1.  If the vegetation was such that the ball may be lost outside of the hazard, then of course you proceed under Rule 27 for a lost ball.  If you  want a more definitive answer, then I need a better description of all of the factors involved.  A rules official on the spot would have the luxury of being able to see and assess all of the different possibilities, and would make a ruling based on all of the information available to him.

Quote:

How about this one- You hit a ball onto the island green at #17 at Sawgrass and see the ball roll and disappear off the back of the green. You are virtually certain that it is in the water and play a shot from the drop area on your way to the green. Upon arriving at the green to putt out your second ball, you find your original ball sitting on the back fringe in a sprinkler head depression. How do you proceed?

You continue play with the ball played from the drop area.  Since you were playing the second ball under Rule 26, and there was no correct reason in this case to play a provisional ball, you are lying three.  Just your bad luck.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You continue play with the ball played from the drop area.  Since you were playing the second ball under Rule 26, and there was no correct reason in this case to play a provisional ball, you are lying three.  Just your bad luck.

Heh, he got you on that one. No provisionals for a ball in a water hazard. :) You can't really "lose" a ball on that hole. If you don't find it, it's wet.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You continue play with the ball played from the drop area.  Since you were playing the second ball under Rule 26, and there was no correct reason in this case to play a provisional ball, you are lying three.  Just your bad luck.

Heh, he got you on that one. No provisionals for a ball in a water hazard. :) You can't really "lose" a ball on that hole. If you don't find it, it's wet.

He never said anything about a "provisional ball".  He said he dropped and played a second ball from the drop area.  When he did that, it became the ball in play and the original ball was abandoned.  Doesn't matter that he found the original ball later, play continues with the second ball lying 3, since it was played correctly under a rule, regardless of whether it was actually needed.  It couldn't have been a provisional ball in any case, since it was played from the drop area, not from the tee.  A provisional ball must be intiated from the same place where the original ball was last played.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

Heh, he got you on that one. No provisionals for a ball in a water hazard. :) You can't really "lose" a ball on that hole. If you don't find it, it's wet.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He never said anything about a "provisional ball".  He said he dropped and played a second ball from the drop area.  When he did that, it became the ball in play and the original ball was abandoned.  Doesn't matter that he found the original ball later, play continues with the second ball lying 3, since it was played correctly under a rule, regardless of whether it was actually needed.  It couldn't have been a provisional ball in any case, since it was played from the drop area, not from the tee.  A provisional ball must be intiated from the same place where the original ball was last played.

You are correct Fourputt in your rules interpretation, but why don`t the rules let you play a provisional drop in that situation?  If a guy is walking and says that he would like to check just to make sure his ball didin`t go in the water every time to avoid a potential outcome where he is not actually in the water but must continue as if he were, it seems like it would slow down play a lot on some courses.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He never said anything about a "provisional ball".  He said he dropped and played a second ball from the drop area.  When he did that, it became the ball in play and the original ball was abandoned.  Doesn't matter that he found the original ball later, play continues with the second ball lying 3, since it was played correctly under a rule, regardless of whether it was actually needed.  It couldn't have been a provisional ball in any case, since it was played from the drop area, not from the tee.  A provisional ball must be intiated from the same place where the original ball was last played.

I didn't know you could do this.  So if a player hits a ball of the tee 10 feet into a bush or some other place that the ball would be difficult to play from he can than procede to the drop area?  Would the same be true if he hit the ball O.B.?

If not than it seems that the player would have played from the wrong spot.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He never said anything about a "provisional ball".  He said he dropped and played a second ball from the drop area.  When he did that, it became the ball in play and the original ball was abandoned.  Doesn't matter that he found the original ball later, play continues with the second ball lying 3, since it was played correctly under a rule, regardless of whether it was actually needed.  It couldn't have been a provisional ball in any case, since it was played from the drop area, not from the tee.  A provisional ball must be intiated from the same place where the original ball was last played.

Yeah, brain fart on my part, - 1 million points for Erik. :P

MEfree, I think you exaggerate things and that's often the case when people make up these types of scenarios. Play isn't being slowed on many courses at all because the rules are followed. I think not hitting a provisional is fine in this situation.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yeah, brain fart on my part, - 1 million points for Erik. :P

MEfree, I think you exaggerate things and that's often the case when people make up these types of scenarios. Play isn't being slowed on many courses at all because the rules are followed. I think not hitting a provisional is fine in this situation.

I may come up with scenarios that are not common, but I am only exaggerating things if I say that they occur more often than they do.  I think extreme examples often pose the best test for rules/laws/etc.  The best rules/laws handle most extreme cases without missing a beat, while weaker laws tend to have problems more commonly.

In the case of the island green scenario, I stole that one from the USGA http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#26-1/1.3 I find it interesting that you usually support the USGA rules, but you are critical of me when I paraphrase one of their scenarios.

If you don`t like the Island green example, I`ll give you one of my own.  Keystone River #6 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=keystone+river+golf+course≪=39.60232,-105.984874&spn;=0.001817,0.004128&fb;=1≷=us&hq;=keystone+river+golf+course&radius;=15000&t;=h&z;=19&iwloc;=J  has water off the tee to a semi blind fairway- you might see your ball land if it bounces high, but normally don't.  Ignoring the local drop area that is not used in real tournaments because it is contrary to USGA rules, your two choices are to re-tee or go up 25-100 yards (depending on which tee you are playing from) and drop a ball behind the hazard.  I have carried this hazard all but one time this year when I saw a splash from my ball.  As it turned out, I found my ball outside the water (but just barely inside the ESA hazard line).  Had I put a ball into play from behind the hazard, I wouldn`t be able to ball a ball that ended up carrying the hazard.

I am not sure how you can argue with my assertion that it every golfer walked up and search the area where his ball could possibly be located outside a hazard before walking back and taking his drop behind a water hazard, that this would tend to slow down rather than speed up play.  Playing a provisional on potential lost ball/OOB is considered to speed up play, so why wouldn`t the ability to play a provisional on potential WH speed up play?

Before you go there, I do realize that there are differences between WH, LB and OOB that raise more issues with a WH provisional.  i.e. if my ball in the example above had been outside the water, but within the margins of a non-ESA hazard...what then becomes of the provisional if I want to play from within the hazard?

The main reason that play isn`t being slowed on many course by people following the rules is because most golfers I see don`t follow the rules.  If the rules are perfect, why aren`t more players following them?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think extreme examples often pose the best test for rules/laws/etc.  The best rules/laws handle most extreme cases without missing a beat, while weaker laws tend to have problems more commonly.

I think rules have to make sense for the more common situations and continue to make sense for the extreme cases . And I think that you've yet to find a rule which doesn't adhere to that.

Originally Posted by MEfree

In the case of the island green scenario, I stole that one from the USGA http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#26-1/1.3  I find it interesting that you usually support the USGA rules, but you are critical of me when I paraphrase one of their scenarios.

How am I not supportive of what the USGA said?

If you play a ball from the drop area it's the ball in play. If you aren't certain the ball is in the hazard, go forward and look.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I am not sure how you can argue with my assertion that it every golfer walked up and search the area where his ball could possibly be located outside a hazard before walking back and taking his drop behind a water hazard, that this would tend to slow down rather than speed up play.

Because it's a self-selective case of golfers who can't hit the ball far enough to reach the fairway. It's not like every group is hitting the ball into that little grey area. If you can't carry the hazard, you may be on the wrong tees.

So yes, sometimes application of the rules slows play. So what? You have a tremendous burden to prove that "occasionally slowing play a little bit" is so big a problem that the rule should be changed.

[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.