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

[mad max]

Originally Posted by mad max

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just want to be clear I should have said. I say get rid of red stakes or LWH, if you can find it on the course you can play it, if not go back to your last shot and take your penalty.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mad max

Why?  If I hit the ball 250 yards into a lake how is that a better shot than one that goes 250 yards that ends up off the course or in a spot designated as being off the course on a certain hole.

Asked and answered. Several times, in fact. It's a worse shot because the penalty is more severe. Heck, that alone is what makes it a "worse" shot.

Just the same if you hit a 6-iron from 180 into the hole versus a 6-iron that goes 180 with the exact same flight, shot quality, etc. that flies and plugs in a bunker. The second - because of the result - is the "worse" shot.

Originally Posted by mad max

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

It wasn't an incorrect determination and it was dropped at the definitive spot as defined and provided for under the Rules.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by iacas

Asked and answered. Several times, in fact. It's a worse shot because the penalty is more severe. Heck, that alone is what makes it a "worse" shot.

Just the same if you hit a 6-iron from 180 into the hole versus a 6-iron that goes 180 with the exact same flight, shot quality, etc. that flies and plugs in a bunker. The second - because of the result - is the "worse" shot.

It wasn't an incorrect determination and it was dropped at the definitive spot as defined and provided for under the Rules.

So its just the rules that make it a worse shot.  I thought the point of this thread was should a shot that goes O.B. or a ball that is lost be penalized the same as a ball that goes into a LWH.  In a discusion about change rules, you can't say because the current rules say it is that is a worse shot that is the way it always has to be.

I think OB, LWH and lost ball should be treated the same, now should the penalty be 1 stroke or 10 that is a different issue.

[mad max]

My point is if you can't find your ball for whatever reason the penalty should be the same.  I am off to work so I won't be responding until tonight.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by mad max

So its just the rules that make it a worse shot.  I thought the point of this thread was should a shot that goes O.B. or a ball that is lost be penalized the same as a ball that goes into a LWH.  In a discusion about change rules, you can't say because the current rules say it is that is a worse shot that is the way it always has to be.

I think OB, LWH and lost ball should be treated the same, now should the penalty be 1 stroke or 10 that is a different issue.

It's not the same for several reasons, the rules just being part it. What I've learned since reading these threads is obstacles are assigned a value when the USGA rating team surveys the course. Not going into the boring details but it's worth looking at if you question these things. Especially the relevance of landing zones for both scratch and bogey golfers relative to the distance from obstacles. That the rating team takes all things into consideration suggests there is correlation of all the variables as it relates to course strategy.

They don't come right out and say it but my take is there is some reflection on how the course should be played. Meaning course management is a factor. In the USGA's description of Obstacle Factors they refer to it as psychological.

"Psychological: Psychological is the evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other obstacles. The location of many punitive obstacles close to a target area creates uneasiness in the mind of the player and thus affects his or her score. This value is purely mathematical and is added after the on-course rating is complete."

To me that says there is a strategical element that needs to be considered when determining the risk of potentially playing a shot that could end up OB verses in a hazard of any type. The penalty is different and subsequently a different risk assessment should be used when navigating different obstacles the course. Even in instances where it appears seemingly random I don't think it's safe to assume it is. Golf is as much about thinking as execution. We don't take random shots purely based on distance no matter what is in front of us. Everything from the weather to the ground the ball is sitting on is a factor.

PS, the OP's considerations are based on the fact that he plays mountain courses. Which in my experience are not a typical layout and demands a different style of play, usually more conservative. I've played the courses he's mentioned and all I can say is they are quirky and not the best example to use when discussing hypothetical rules modifications.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad max

So its just the rules that make it a worse shot.  I thought the point of this thread was should a shot that goes O.B. or a ball that is lost be penalized the same as a ball that goes into a LWH.  In a discusion about change rules, you can't say because the current rules say it is that is a worse shot that is the way it always has to be.

I think OB, LWH and lost ball should be treated the same, now should the penalty be 1 stroke or 10 that is a different issue.

It's not the same for several reasons, the rules just being part it. What I've learned since reading these threads is obstacles are assigned a value when the USGA rating team surveys the course. Not going into the boring details but it's worth looking at if you question these things. Especially the relevance of landing zones for both scratch and bogey golfers relative to the distance from obstacles. That the rating team takes all things into consideration suggests there is correlation of all the variables as it relates to course strategy.

They don't come right out and say it but my take is there is some reflection on how the course should be played. Meaning course management is a factor. In the USGA's description of Obstacle Factors they refer to it as psychological.

"Psychological: Psychological is the evaluation of the cumulative effect of the other obstacles. The location of many punitive obstacles close to a target area creates uneasiness in the mind of the player and thus affects his or her score. This value is purely mathematical and is added after the on-course rating is complete."

To me that says there is a strategical element that needs to be considered when determining the risk of potentially playing a shot that could end up OB verses in a hazard of any type. The penalty is different and subsequently a different risk assessment should be used when navigating different obstacles the course. Even in instances where it appears seemingly random I don't think it's safe to assume it is. Golf is as much about thinking as execution. We don't take random shots purely based on distance no matter what is in front of us. Everything from the weather to the ground the ball is sitting on is a factor.

PS, the OP's considerations are based on the fact that he plays mountain courses. Which in my experience are not a typical layout and demands a different style of play, usually more conservative. I've played the courses he's mentioned and all I can say is they are quirky and not the best example to use when discussing hypothetical rules modifications.

Outstanding comments!  Regardless of the opinions of the OP's supporter, personal opinion should not be a factor in setting rules and making changes.  You can't just throw out the traditional values of the game because courses are more crowded and play tends to be slower that it should be.  Pace of play and procedural doubt are good reasons for the allowed adjustments for unfinished holes when returning handicap scores, but rather shoddy reasoning for modifying the actual rules of the game.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mad max

So its just the rules that make it a worse shot.

No, not entirely. I could have worded my post more clearly but I'll do so now.

Again, OB is a worse shot because you've hit the ball out of play. The ball is still in play in a hazard.

Most ponds and water hazards are closer to the intended line, too, than OB. So common sense and general course design principles ALSO make OB shots typically the "worse" shot than a ball that comes up just short or just misses the edge of the fairway or whatever.

Originally Posted by mad max

I think OB, LWH and lost ball should be treated the same, now should the penalty be 1 stroke or 10 that is a different issue.

And currently, you're in the minority, which I'm glad to see.

Originally Posted by Dave2512

PS, the OP's considerations are based on the fact that he plays mountain courses. Which in my experience are not a typical layout and demands a different style of play, usually more conservative. I've played the courses he's mentioned and all I can say is they are quirky and not the best example to use when discussing hypothetical rules modifications.

Yes, I would tend to agree that the situations he encounters are in a small minority, especially when you add in his "flavor" or opinion into how they should be handled. Add in a dash of improper course setup now and then, and again his opinions, and you can see why he keeps coming up with weird situations that don't seem to happen very many other places at all.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by mad max

The more I think about this the more I think that the problem lies with rules governing red stakes or LWH.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by iacas

It wasn't an incorrect determination and it was dropped at the definitive spot as defined and provided for under the Rules.

Sorry for re quoting myself but I think you took my comment about Tiger out of context.  My point wasn't that Tiger cheated.  I understand that Tiger did what he was supposed to under the rules, but their was a lot of discussion on this forum and elsewhere about if he dropped in the correct location.  I think the consensus was that no one could tell for sure if the drop was in the correct location, but he did the right thing and asked others who saw the shot what they thought.

My point was that if LWH was eliminated their would be less confusion about where and how to drop.  If you find your ball in bounds you can play it like you would any other ball i.e. 2 club lengths with penalty, play it as it lies, or play from the original spot with penalty.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

PS, the OP's considerations are based on the fact that he plays mountain courses. Which in my experience are not a typical layout and demands a different style of play, usually more conservative. I've played the courses he's mentioned and all I can say is they are quirky and not the best example to use when discussing hypothetical rules modifications.

I realize that our impressions of how the rules should be applied are affected by the courses that you play the most.  I would think someone that plays in Britain on a course that had knee high grass just off the fairway but no water would hate the lost ball rule compared to the LWH rule.  Whereas someone that played in the USA on a course that was perfectly manicured but had water all over the place would think that a ball in a LWH shouldn't be as penal as a lost ball.

I love the fact that the rules are the same for everyone at all skill levels on all courses, but that is what making the rules for golf so difficult.  I just feel that if you can't find your ball on the course you should take the same penalty as any other ball you can't find on the course.  Not to mention that the rules governing LWH are complex as well as subjective.

I say eliminate LWH and the game is less complicated and you won't have as many people complaining about stroke and distance penalties.

[SCfanatic35]

I like the penalties being what they are.  IMO, the majority of courses I have seen or played, the hazards are nearer the intended target. Whereas the areas marked OB are usually much more off target, and since the hazards are closer to the target line, their penalty should be less severe than OB or lost.  Also, the majority of water hazards I have played are visible so determining point of crossing is much easier than when it heads out into trees, wilderness, whatever.  Balls usually don't end up in the area they should be when headed out of bounds.  They usually bounce off trees, rocks, whatever.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mad max

Not to mention that the rules governing LWH are complex as well as subjective.

How are they subjective?  There are options as to how to proceed, but they are cut and dried.

And ever since the website hooked me up with these little guys ... http://thesandtrap.com/products/skillzys-golf-rule-tagz/reviews/4527 ... they aren't at all complex either.  :)

[mad max]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

How are they subjective?  There are options as to how to proceed, but they are cut and dried.

And ever since the website hooked me up with these little guys ... http://thesandtrap.com/products/skillzys-golf-rule-tagz/reviews/4527 ... they aren't at all complex either.  :)

They are subjective in regards of where your ball last crossed the hazard.  Look at Tigers shot at the Players.

They are subjective in regards to whether you ball is virtually certain that it is in fact in the hazard.

Once you have determined that your ball is virtually certainly in the hazard and that you have determined the correct spot that it crossed the hazard line I would agree that you have a set or rules that you should be able to follow from that point on.  My argument is that determining those points is subjective.

Hey what else are we going to do on a Tuesday night

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mad max

They are subjective in regards of where your ball last crossed the hazard.  Look at Tigers shot at the Players.

They are subjective in regards to whether you ball is virtually certain that it is in fact in the hazard.

Once you have determined that your ball is virtually certainly in the hazard and that you have determined the correct spot that it crossed the hazard line I would agree that you have a set or rules that you should be able to follow from that point on.  My argument is that determining those points is subjective.

Hey what else are we going to do on a Tuesday night

OK ... I don't think you are using the right word, but I understand what you are saying.  There is nothing subjective about it.  You, and everybody else involved, come to a consensus about the location.  The best estimate you can all agree on.  But, again, not subjective.  Subjective would mean that you have some sort of choice as to where that ball crossed.  You don't.

And I don't know why people keep bringing up the Tiger thing because it's stupid ... the only reason there is a "controversy" is because a couple of the TV announcers, who had nothing even remotely resembling a decent perspective of the shot (not a single TV camera gives us any decent clue about the flight of that ball) opened their fat mouths and decided to (perhaps, inadvertently) drum up a fake controversy.  Tiger did that by the book:  Tiger consulted his caddy and his playing partner, everybody agreed where the drop point should have been, they were correct, game over, move on.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by mad max

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

How are they subjective?  There are options as to how to proceed, but they are cut and dried.

And ever since the website hooked me up with these little guys ... http://thesandtrap.com/products/skillzys-golf-rule-tagz/reviews/4527 ... they aren't at all complex either.  :)

They are subjective in regards of where your ball last crossed the hazard.  Look at Tigers shot at the Players.

They are subjective in regards to whether you ball is virtually certain that it is in fact in the hazard.

Once you have determined that your ball is virtually certainly in the hazard and that you have determined the correct spot that it crossed the hazard line I would agree that you have a set or rules that you should be able to follow from that point on.  My argument is that determining those points is subjective.

Hey what else are we going to do on a Tuesday night

There was nothing questionable about it on the course.  The only questions raised came from TV viewers and TV commentators, all of whom had the same bad angles to see the shot.  Those who were right there on the tee box had no question at all.  To them the point was obvious, the procedure was followed correctly, and the result was exactly as it should have been.  The only questions being raised are from people like you who won't let it go.

I can't even begin to count how many times I've played under the lateral water hazard rule in competitions, and once only was my play questioned, and that was exactly the same situation as Tiger's.  Of the 3 other players in my group, only the one with the worst angle questioned my drop.  The other 2 fellow competitors, one of whom was only 10 feet from me, concurred with where my ball crossed the margin, and the committee upheld my play.  I'd say that pretty much debunks your theory that there is some inherent fallacy in the process.  If a player actually makes the effort to watch his ball and spot where it crosses, he can get very close even on a fairly high shot.  That's all that's required.

[Dave2512]

Watching a ball crossing into a hazard is no more difficult to see than one that misses a fairway and lands in the rough. Hitting the ball, watching it and moving towards it is one of the first things we learn as golfers. Not sure how this came up but it seems contentious without reason.

[MEfree]

A ball that is at the bottom of a lake is only "in play" because the current rules say it is just as the current rules say that a ball you find with a good lie inches out of bounds is out of play. RE four putts football analogy, with football you count the down (aka stroke in golf) and don't get credit for any yardage but you DON'T get assessed a further penalty like you do in golf. Golf would be the same if you re teed and were lying 2, not 3. I said that some of Jack's victories would need to be reclassified in a tongue and cheek reference to others saying that it is not golf if you play under any rules that are different than the current rules. The reality is that golf has seen lots of rule changes over the years and everyone has continued to call it golf. As far as course ratings go, yes, they are based on the current rules and may need to be tweaked a bit if the rules were modified. I think the estimation issue came up because some think that there is the possibility that different players might estimate location or determine virtual certainty different than other players. I agree with this and agree that having one rule/penalty to cover [quote name="Dave2512" url="/t/67379/poll-ob-lost-ball-vs-hazard-unplayable-lie-penalties/60#post_851547"]Watching a ball crossing into a hazard is no more difficult to see than one that misses a fairway and lands in the rough. Hitting the ball, watching it and moving towards it is one of the first things we learn as golfers. Not sure how this came up but it seems contentious without reason. [/quote]

[MEfree]

Both would simplify things. I agree with those that it is possible to estimate not only where a ball crossed a hazard line but also to estimate where it crossed OB and estimate a reasonable search area. While not as clear cut as going back to the spot you last played from, I think these estimations would help to speed up play, especially in situations where no provisional was played because you thought you would find your ball in play.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

A ball that is at the bottom of a lake is only "in play" because the current rules say it is just as the current rules say that a ball you find with a good lie inches out of bounds is out of play.

Among other things, yes. But in no sport that I can think of is a ball that is out of bounds "in play" at all.

Originally Posted by MEfree

RE four putts football analogy, with football you count the down (aka stroke in golf) and don't get credit for any yardage but you DON'T get assessed a further penalty like you do in golf. Golf would be the same if you re teed and were lying 2, not 3.

That's taking things too far. The concept there was whether you'd advanced the ball or not. If you take it too far (as you've done) you're using too many actual RULES of football and not sticking to the general CONCEPTS of football (or other sports).

Originally Posted by MEfree

I said that some of Jack's victories would need to be reclassified in a tongue and cheek reference to others saying that it is not golf if you play under any rules that are different than the current rules. The reality is that golf has seen lots of rule changes over the years and everyone has continued to call it golf.

They were current when he won them. Several people won majors with the flag in the cup and struck by putts, but they still count.

Yes, the game of golf has seen rules changes. But you've yet to provide a compelling argument why THESE rules SHOULD be changed. You've not even shown that most golfers WANT the rules changed in the way you'd like.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Both would simplify things. I agree with those that it is possible to estimate not only where a ball crossed a hazard line but also to estimate where it crossed OB and estimate a reasonable search area. While not as clear cut as going back to the spot you last played from, I think these estimations would help to speed up play, especially in situations where no provisional was played because you thought you would find your ball in play.

OB is often hidden amongst trees while lakes, ponds, etc. are often in more open areas (trees don't regularly grow up through water), so I disagree that it's reasonable to assume we could be as good at noting where a ball went OB versus where a ball last crossed a hazard line. OB shots are far more likely to glance off trees than balls into hazards. Again, obviously you can think of counter-examples, but so can I - and in this case I can think of far more than you, which is why I'm saying that OB is "generally" more obscured than a water hazard line.

You've done a good job of dodging all of the good questions asked of you, and answering only those that you want to answer. But answer this: because you've said that you think the rules should be changed because golfers WANT the rules to be changed, and this poll states the opposite, are you going to give up now? If not, why not? You've been soundly defeated in the "it is what golfers want" position.