Virtual Certainty?

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Irrelevant.  It goes to course set up and specific conditions, and luck.  The guy who hit the middle of the lake was luckier than the other guy.  The example given by another poster the other day is all that's needed to refute this argument.  Two players play from the tee - both balls lie within 2 feet of each other.  One has a clear shot to the green, while the other lies unplayable between 2 tree roots.  Since they both hit nearly identical shots, why should one have a clear shot and the other have to take a penalty?  Luck of the draw.

It evolved from the previous requirement of reasonable doubt.  It's the glass half full - glass half empty philosophy.  One looks at the issue from a point of view that there must be reasonable doubt that the ball is in the hazard while the other sees it as needing virtual certainty that it does lie there.  In both cases there is some slight wiggle room, but it can really only be applied in a few rare situations.  The scenarios you present do not qualify.  In your example, if you aren't certain (forget the virtually part for this ruling), then it isn't in the hazard.

If a course is set up according to USGA guidelines, these issues will be rare because the long grass is recommended to be included within the hazard margin.  A course which is not set up according to those guidelines is not valid to use as an example for questioning the rule.

That is irrelevant.  The same conditions apply to all players in a given competition or casual round, so they are fair by definition.  Luck cannot be legislated out of the game.

x

Yes, but why have one guy get luckier then the other based on somewhat arbitrary rules if you can have rules that avoid this?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Yes, but why have one guy get luckier then the other based on somewhat arbitrary rules if you can have rules that avoid this?

. <---------- The point.

MEfree ------------> x

You can't legislate luck. You can't legislate "not knowing" something.

Fourputt took the time to write yet another version of the same things we've all been saying to you, and you respond with that? C'mon. It's like you're not even reading or thinking about what people are saying. You cherry pick things to respond to and even then don't really seem to respond.

Your mind is made up. You've decided that golf's rules are stupid, that they're hurting participation, and you don't seem to care about facts, arguments, opinions, etc. to the contrary.

Your proposed rules to fix "luck" fundamentally change the game by tossing aside the differences between a ball that's in play versus one that's not in play (and several other things). We've been over this. It's getting quite tiring going around this same circle with you.

Play the ball as it lies, or take an unplayable. The guy two feet away in the tree roots is unlucky. How are you going to legislate that away? You can't. Not while playing anything resembling golf.

[MEfree]

True, you can't 100% legislate luck but certain rules can either minimize or increase the role luck plays. I.e. Allowing players to fix ball marks on greens reduces the "luck factor" while prohibiting the fixing of spike marks increases the role luck plays as it becomes unlucky to have a spike mark in your line and lucky to have none (or have one just outside your line that helps move your ball back on line).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

True, you can't 100% legislate luck but certain rules can either minimize or increase the role luck plays. I.e. Allowing players to fix ball marks on greens reduces the "luck factor" while prohibiting the fixing of spike marks increases the role luck plays as it becomes unlucky to have a spike mark in your line and lucky to have none (or have one just outside your line that helps move your ball back on line).

I disagree that fixing ball marks on the green is about mitigating luck. Spike marks haven't been an issue for a long time, and frankly, you'd get a lot more support for a rule that said you can repair ANY damage to the green (not just ball marks) than you have for your OB=lateral hazard attempts.

[MEfree]

I disagree that fixing ball marks on the green is about mitigating luck. Spike marks haven't been an issue for a long time, and frankly, you'd get a lot more support for a rule that said you can repair ANY damage to the green (not just ball marks) than you have for your OB=lateral hazard attempts.

Not saying that the reason for the rule is to mitigate luck, just that being able to fix ball marks reduces the effects of luck while NOT being able to fix other damage increases the role luck plays. The lack of virtual certainty = lost ball role increases the role of luck because the penalty for notnhaving virtual certainty is so high. Again, I am saying this I is a by product of but likely not the main reason for the rule. While I do think that dealing with adversity well is a mark of a true champion, I think golf tests this plenty on it's own so, other considerations aside, I would favor being able to repair all damage to the green. My only real concern about that is if some players took too long doing it.