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

[mad max]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

The decisions cover this:

Thanks, just so I am clear if this mistake was noticed before hitting the next shot 20.6 would apply and if it was after 20.7 would

20-6 . Lifting Ball Incorrectly Substituted, Dropped Or Placed

A ball incorrectly substituted , dropped or placed in a wrong place or otherwise not in accordance with the Rules but not played may be lifted, without penalty, and the player must then proceed correctly.

20-7 . Playing From Wrong Place

a . General

A player has played from a wrong place if he makes a stroke at his ball in play :

(i) on a part of the course where the Rules do not permit a stroke to be made or a ball to be dropped or placed; or

(ii) when the Rules require a dropped ball to be re-dropped or a moved ball to be replaced.

Note: For a ball played from outside the teeing ground or from a wrong teeing ground – see Rule 11-4 .

c . Stroke Play

If a competitor makes a stroke from a wrong place, he incurs a penalty of two strokes under the applicable Rule . He must play out the hole with the ball played from the wrong place, without correcting his error, provided he has not committed a serious breach (see Note 1).

If a competitor becomes aware that he has played from a wrong place and believes that he may have committed a serious breach, he must, before making a stroke on the next teeing ground , play out the hole with a second ball played in accordance with the Rules . If the hole being played is the last hole of the round, he must declare, before leaving the putting green , that he will play out the hole with a second ball played in accordance with the Rules .

If the competitor has played a second ball, he must report the facts to the Committee before returning his score card; if he fails to do so, he is disqualified . The Committee must determine whether the competitor has committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule . If he has, the score with the second ball counts and the competitor must add two penalty strokes to his score with that ball. If the competitor has committed a serious breach and has failed to correct it as outlined above, he is disqualified .

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Right, I understand that part. But what happens when you do that and immediately after you hit the ball your opponent finds your first ball BEHIND where you played, meaning you played nearer to the hole. What happens then?

Originally Posted by mad max

Just to play devil advocate what happens if this occurs when you think your ball entered a lateral water hazard.

Here is where "virtual certainty" makes it tricky and is one of my issues with it.  There have been other decisions quoted above, but I think this could also apply to the questions you two asked

26-1/17

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

Q. In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16 , what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in a wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

A. A must continue play with the ball played from a wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from a wrong place (see Rule 20-7 ) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water-hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Here is the crux of my issue with "Virtual Certainty" and making a differentiation between a ball that is clearly lost in a hazard and a ball that may be lost outside a hazard.

The phrase "virtual certainty" provides a reasonable definition for the bar that must be cleared. Any other phrasing would most likely be be MORE confusing.

At any rate, that's not the topic here. It is here. In fact, I'm moving your post.

The poll is at 14-4 currently, with your side losing ME. Are you going to give this up now because it's not "what the people want" (never mind all of the very real and obvious objections to it)?

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

The phrase "virtual certainty" provides a reasonable definition for the bar that must be cleared. Any other phrasing would most likely be be MORE confusing.

At any rate, that's not the topic here. It is here. In fact, I'm moving your post.

The poll is at 14-4 currently, with your side losing ME. Are you going to give this up now because it's not "what the people want" (never mind all of the very real and obvious objections to it)?

I'll give it up after this post, but find it interesting that you moved my last post into a different thread.  Over the past few days I have been chastised for being off topic in a thread AND for creating a new thread when some considered that it was really just the same topic.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Here is where "virtual certainty" makes it tricky and is one of my issues with it.  There have been other decisions quoted above, but I think this could also apply to the questions you two asked

26-1/17

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped and Played; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

Q.In the circumstances described in Decision 26-1/16, what is the ruling if A, having dropped a ball in a wrong place, plays it before his error is discovered?

A.A must continue play with the ball played from a wrong place, without penalty. Applying a penalty under Rule 26-1 for playing from a wrong place (see Rule 20-7) is not appropriate. Otherwise, a competitor would risk incurring a penalty every time he makes an honest judgment as to the point where his ball last crosses a water-hazard margin and that judgment subsequently proves incorrect.

The problem with that decision though as it relates to my question to you is that it applies to water hazards specifically and furthermore, in this instance, the player would not have played nearer to the hole as he still would have dropped behind the hazard, just on the wrong line. In the situation I gave you, the player played nearer to the hole without knowing it and then his ball was found. How do your rules handle that situation? Remember these are your rules, you don't have to quote a decision here because you are changing the rules so the decisions might be different.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I'll give it up after this post, but find it interesting that you moved my last post into a different thread. Over the past few days I have been chastised for being off topic in a thread AND for creating a new thread when some considered that it was really just the same topic.

Your post had to do with virtual certainty. You have a thread called "virtual certainty." This thread is about "Poll: OB/Lost Ball vs. …". The post belonged in the other thread. I'm not sure what you want, but the direction to stay on topic has been consistent.

There's no "hair splitting" and for the purposes of this thread, the people clearly disagree with you. You stated that you favored changing the rules because you suspected golfers would agree with you. That's now shown to be wrong.

Since your complaints about virtual certainty and your example of Player A and B are just a re-post, I've left that post over there where it belongs and removed the duplicate content from here. This thread is about a poll (that didn't go as you seemed to believe it would). It isn't about virtual certainty - you created another thread for that rule. Discussion of virtual certainty belongs there, discussion of different penalties belongs here. I get that your OP in this thread mentions "virtual certainty" which muddies the waters a bit, but I am comfortable in the choices being made by myself and other moderators in where the relevant threads and topics are going and have gone.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

The problem with that decision though as it relates to my question to you is that it applies to water hazards specifically and furthermore, in this instance, the player would not have played nearer to the hole as he still would have dropped behind the hazard, just on the wrong line. In the situation I gave you, the player played nearer to the hole without knowing it and then his ball was found. How do your rules handle that situation? Remember these are your rules, you don't have to quote a decision here because you are changing the rules so the decisions might be different.

I thought this was referring to lateral water hazards where you can't drop behind the hazard.  If you thought your ball crossed the hazard 10 yards farther up then it did, I could make the argument that you played your ball 10 yards closer to the hole than you should have. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the decision basically says if the player is acting in good faith there is no penalty.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

The problem with that decision though as it relates to my question to you is that it applies to water hazards specifically and furthermore, in this instance, the player would not have played nearer to the hole as he still would have dropped behind the hazard, just on the wrong line. In the situation I gave you, the player played nearer to the hole without knowing it and then his ball was found. How do your rules handle that situation? Remember these are your rules, you don't have to quote a decision here because you are changing the rules so the decisions might be different.

I'd handle it the same way as the two referenced decisions do for water hazards as I think the logic behind those decisions is sound- free re-drop to correct location if discovered before a stroke is made and continue to play without penalty if the discovery was afterwards.

I don't think all the rules of golf are bad or that there isn't some very good logic behind most rules.  However, the only way I see to simplify the rules is to treat as many possible similar but slightly different situations the same under the rules.  Yes, a ball lost outside a hazard might be different than a ball lost inside a hazard, but I think it is better to treat the two the same.

Thanks Erik for editing my prior post- for those interested in what I see as an example relevant to this thread, go to http://thesandtrap.com/t/67365/virtual-certainty#post_850150

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

However, the only way I see to simplify the rules is to treat as many possible similar but slightly different situations the same under the rules. Yes, a ball lost outside a hazard might be different than a ball lost inside a hazard, but I think it is better to treat the two the same.

A lost ball and a ball in a hazard are not "slightly different" nor is a ball in a hazard a lost ball.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by mad max

I thought this was referring to lateral water hazards where you can't drop behind the hazard.  If you thought your ball crossed the hazard 10 yards farther up then it did, I could make the argument that you played your ball 10 yards closer to the hole than you should have. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the decision basically says if the player is acting in good faith there is no penalty.

Good point. I think you are right there.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I'd handle it the same way as the two referenced decisions do for water hazards as I think the logic behind those decisions is sound- free re-drop to correct location if discovered before a stroke is made and continue to play without penalty if the discovery was afterwards.

I don't think all the rules of golf are bad or that there isn't some very good logic behind most rules.  However, the only way I see to simplify the rules is to treat as many possible similar but slightly different situations the same under the rules.  Yes, a ball lost outside a hazard might be different than a ball lost inside a hazard, but I think it is better to treat the two the same.

Thanks Erik for editing my prior post- for those interested in what I see as an example relevant to this thread, go to http://thesandtrap.com/t/67365/virtual-certainty#post_850150

Fair enough. I can't say that I agree and I think there are a number of issues with it, but if that's how you think it should be handled then ok. I understand that you are trying to simplify the rules but I think trimming them down actually only serves to make things more complicated as now instead of having a rule for nearly every situation you have one rule that handles situations that are kind of the same and you kind of have to guess about things or how to apply the rule. More rules definitely lead to a longer rule book and more to know but they also lead to more certainty with regards to how to handle situations.

Anyways, thanks for answering my question.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by trackster

My advice to you is don't change the rule, just don't hit it out of bounce.  The reason you can't change the rules to play like a hazard is that you can't easily drop in appropriate areas.  Let's  say that you lose a ball.  Since it is a lost ball you technically have no idea where it is exactly.  What rule or guidance are you going to take to say where you should drop for your penalty?  You can't say drop were you think it is lost.  If the ball is lost the only logical play is to play your next from the previous spot.  I have lost balls that I thought went down the middle of the fairway.  Do you suggest I plop one down right at the 150 to go mark and call that good?

The same applies for O.B.  Where are you going to drop.  Where you think that it crossed the out of bounds plane?  Good luck deciding where that happened.  By your logic there would be no need to have out of bounds even defined.  If you hit it out of bounds and you can find it then play it.  If you can't find it just take a drop where you think it is.

Yes, the penalty for hitting out of bounds and losing a ball blows, but that is the point.  It deters the play of certain shots.  If you don't want to have to deal with these consequences then keep the ball in play, which is the ultimate goal of the penalties.

Replying to the bolded parts.

I have lost balls that I thought went down the middle of the fairway. Do you suggest I plop one down right at the 150 to go mark and call that good? Yes taking one penalty stoke is enough deterrent that if you hit your ball down the middle and see it bounce a couple times but for whatever reason you can't find the ball the one penalty stroke more than compensates for you possibly being a few yards closer of having a better lie than you would if you found your original.

Since this has happened to you what do you do in this situation?  Do you go back to where your original ball was after 5 mins of looking?  I know what I do and I know it is not within the rules but I take a two stroke penalty and play the ball where I think it should be.

The same applies for O.B.  Where are you going to drop. Where you think that it crossed the out of bounds plane?  Good luck deciding where that happened. But this is exactly what we do when we hit a ball in a lateral water hazard and are not able to find it.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by mad max

Replying to the bolded parts.

I have lost balls that I thought went down the middle of the fairway.  Do you suggest I plop one down right at the 150 to go mark and call that good?  Yes taking one penalty stoke is enough deterrent that if you hit your ball down the middle and see it bounce a couple times but for whatever reason you can't find the ball the one penalty stroke more than compensates for you possibly being a few yards closer of having a better lie than you would if you found your original.

Since this has happened to you what do you do in this situation?  Do you go back to where your original ball was after 5 mins of looking?  I know what I do and I know it is not within the rules but I take a two stroke penalty and play the ball where I think it should be.

The same applies for O.B.  Where are you going to drop.  Where you think that it crossed the out of bounds plane?  Good luck deciding where that happened.  But this is exactly what we do when we hit a ball in a lateral water hazard and are not able to find it.

I'll give you the O.B. one and I do believe that the lateral hazard does leave some guess work.  But on the lost ball, there is no help that I can give you.  If you can't find your ball the only logical play is to play from where you have just played from.  I had a ball today that I couldn't find after a shot so yes I did go back and play from the previous spot.  If a rule started treating lost balls as a "drop where you think it is" rule, you will see the most blatantly abused rule in golf, especially with all the "300 yard" hitters in the word.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by trackster

I'll give you the O.B. one and I do believe that the lateral hazard does leave some guess work.  But on the lost ball, there is no help that I can give you.  If you can't find your ball the only logical play is to play from where you have just played from.  I had a ball today that I couldn't find after a shot so yes I did go back and play from the previous spot.  If a rule started treating lost balls as a "drop where you think it is" rule, you will see the most blatantly abused rule in golf, especially with all the "300 yard" hitters in the word.

I agree, I think this poll might have more support if MEfree ditched the lost ball portion of it.  I also find that dropping after going into red stakes is abused frequently by players that try to play by the rules.  They tend to drop at a distance where a good drive would have gone and they always have a clear shot.

I do the clear shot thing too .  I do support making the penalty for hitting o.b similar to a hazard but, I would be fine with making them both stroke and distance penalty's.  It doesn't seem right to me because a course chooses to mark an area that you should not hit into with white sticks instead of red sticks you should have effectively double the penalty.

This thread has me thinking, maybe the problem is not the O.B./lost ball rule but the rule that covers LWH.  You hit the ball in a lake or the ocean, that ball is lost for all intent and purpose in the game of golf.  If you find your ball in a LWH you can play it if you can, or you can take an unplayable, if none of those work go back to the spot of your last shot.

Most golfers I have played with (myself included) treat any shot that they hit close to a LWH as a ball that went into the LWH if they can not find the ball.  I know the rules say virtually certain but what does virtually certain mean?

I would start a new poll or thread but I don't want to get into trouble.

[Mordan]

Golf strategy is more interesting when you need to consider different penalties for where your shot might end up. As soon as you say that it's a one shot penalty, somewhere up near where your ball lands, no matter what then you might as well bomb away every time.

But ultimately what determines which penalties result from what conditions is down to practicality. The idea that you can decide what your search area is, and then decide to drop wherever your ball would have entered that area is ripe for abuse. It works for water hazards because they're a clearly define area, either it is virtually certain that your ball ended up in that area or not. If it did then you estimate where it entered that area and drop there. That way it's the same for everyone. Unless the course is going to mark "wooded hazards" or the like then there is going to be no consistency.

And I think that the main reason you'll get no traction with the OB idea is because it's not very often that the out of bounds fence has clear land right up to it. So in many cases you won't be able to drop two club lengths from the fence because it's deep in the trees etc. When there isn't clear land outside a hazard the rules say that you should mark the hazard further out. That makes sense and doesn't unfairly penalise the golfer. But imagine if they moved the out of bounds to the edge of the woods so that you could drop. Would you really be happy that your ball was in the woods and playable only a couple of yards from the rough but now that's out of bounds and you need to take a penalty and drop?

The rules as they stand work remarkably well in a very wide variety of situations. You can go to a course you've never played before and are very unlikely to meet a situation where you're unsure how to proceed, even if the course is very different to anything you've ever played before.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Mordan

Golf strategy is more interesting when you need to consider different penalties for where your shot might end up. As soon as you say that it's a one shot penalty, somewhere up near where your ball lands, no matter what then you might as well bomb away every time.

But ultimately what determines which penalties result from what conditions is down to practicality. The idea that you can decide what your search area is, and then decide to drop wherever your ball would have entered that area is ripe for abuse. It works for water hazards because they're a clearly define area, either it is virtually certain that your ball ended up in that area or not. If it did then you estimate where it entered that area and drop there. That way it's the same for everyone. Unless the course is going to mark "wooded hazards" or the like then there is going to be no consistency.

And I think that the main reason you'll get no traction with the OB idea is because it's not very often that the out of bounds fence has clear land right up to it. So in many cases you won't be able to drop two club lengths from the fence because it's deep in the trees etc. When there isn't clear land outside a hazard the rules say that you should mark the hazard further out. That makes sense and doesn't unfairly penalise the golfer. But imagine if they moved the out of bounds to the edge of the woods so that you could drop. Would you really be happy that your ball was in the woods and playable only a couple of yards from the rough but now that's out of bounds and you need to take a penalty and drop?

The rules as they stand work remarkably well in a very wide variety of situations. You can go to a course you've never played before and are very unlikely to meet a situation where you're unsure how to proceed, even if the course is very different to anything you've ever played before.

And most of the time you can tell when you should be playing a provisional ball, even if you have never played the course before.

As an example, I hit a drive and it goes over a hill near the edge of the fairway, or maybe clearly over rough.  I've never been here before, and I don't know just what might lie over the hill, so I pull my 3W and play a safe provisional ball to the top of the hill just for insurance.  Takes about 30 seconds, and then when I get to the top of the hill, I can get the idea very quickly if my original ball is in real trouble or not.   You don't have to see your ball vanish into the native rough to believe that there might be a chance that it could be in trouble.  If you want to play by the rules and post a real score, that's all you have to do.  You don't need a rules change or make an incorrect drop just because you didn't know that there was a chance of losing the ball.

If you're playing a course with delusions of grandeur, with US Open rough so that every drive risks becoming a lost ball, then maybe you made a poor choice of where to play.  Most courses strive for playability, so most of us will rarely, if ever play a course where the mowed rough is so harsh that lost balls are a regular problem in it.  I know that some players love to brag that their course has a 75 rating and a 148 slope, yet they are often the first to propose or support such rules changes as MEFree keeps trying to put forward, using the excuse that the game needs to be easier for the unwashed masses.  The reality is that perhaps they don't belong on a course which was designed for expert players with a solid all around game.  If you do choose to play such courses, then you have to accept the consequences.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

So mefree if you lose this poll does that mean youll sotp posting all these threads about how the people want the rules to be different?

To be fair though, he last thread was locked.

He probably should have been more clear about what he wanted to discuss in his initial thread, but each time the discussion progresses Erik tries to keep in narrowly focused on whatever MEfree's stated topic was. I understand the intention, but the message to MEfree is to start a new thread for each related issue.

Also, why does golfingdad only play at courses along the rim of the grand canyon?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

To be fair though, he last thread was locked.

I'd re-open it, but the "challenge" was to simplify the rules without changing the game, and I don't think anyone thinks that challenge was met.

Originally Posted by dsc123

He probably should have been more clear about what he wanted to discuss in his initial thread, but each time the discussion progresses Erik tries to keep in narrowly focused on whatever MEfree's stated topic was.  I understand the intention, but the message to MEfree is to start a new thread for each related issue.

FWIW I don't have any problems with starting new threads. I've encouraged it. I moved a post or two from this thread to the other thread because they belong there.

Sometimes it feels like MEfree is hammering on the same thing in several threads simultaneously, but they're often different enough to warrant different threads. Sometimes, too, it feels like if he's losing one thread he'll just start another and try again, though. :D

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This is sort of related to the portion of his point that I tend to understand.  Let's say, for example, that the area to the right of the hole is a giant canyon that is on the course property.  (Since you'll see several of these on the back 9 at Talega ;))  They can paint the edge of that canyon with red paint if they want, white paint if they want, or even no paint if they want.  I can hit the exact same horrendous shot into that canyon , and depending on which type of paint they (arbitrarily) chose, my penalty is going to be quite different.  It is that reason why I just don't see that the game would be fundamentally different if the penalties for all astray shots were uniform.  So, in the spirit of Mefree's idea, I could see the merits behind calling all areas off course the same thing. Whether it be a canyon , a lake, a forest, or just 10 foot high wild grass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Also, why does golfingdad only play at courses along the rim of the grand canyon?

What would ever give you that idea???  (OK, so maybe I exaggerate slightly when I say 'giant' canyon)

And the way I currently spray the ball off the tee, it's really dumb of me to ever play those types of courses.  I should stick to flat rectangle pieces of land where I can recover from two fairways over.

Quote:

Sometimes, too, it feels like if he's losing one thread he'll just start another and try again, though. :D

Kind of like a lawyer on TV, after an objection from the opposing counsel, who simply says "I'll rephrase the question."