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

[tomvk77]

I can agree about the part if it's likely your ball went in a LWH but not sure, and it actually did go in the hazard.

But the same penalty for a ball in the LWH and an OB shot is going to far for me. There is a huge difference in those shots.

Altho it would speed up the game allot. Nothing more irritating than a person that must go back to the tee to hit another shot.

[mad max]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

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.

I use subjective because I have played with players that I will call optimists.  The optimist hits a shot to an area that can't be seen from the tee, the optimist says it opens up over there.  When we get there he can't find the ball after searching for 5 minutes but see a LWH, he thinks in his own head that the ball must be in that LWH.  I know I am using an extreme example but after you hit your shot towards a LWH if you are virtually certain that it is in that LWH you should be forced to make that determination right there not look for a while and then say well it must be in the LWH.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

I have never question someones drop but I have seen many people drop in a different area than I would have.  I don't question it for one or more of the following reasons, A.I am not positive that they are incorrect.  B.We are not playing for anything important just dinner, or drinks, or just pride.  C.I don't want to make the rest of the round unpleasant.  D.I am playing well and I don't want to lose my mojo dealing with someone elses drop.

How about you Fourputt have you ever questioned another player's drop.  Have you ever thought they dropped in a different spot that you would have and how did you handle it.

Originally Posted by 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.

I am not talking about a clear cut shot that starts right at a LWH and goes in with a splash.  I am talking about a ball with lots of sideways movement on it that clears a meandering creek while still high up in the air.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by tomvk77

Altho it would speed up the game allot. Nothing more irritating than a person that must go back to the tee to hit another shot.

I think going back to the tee should be eliminated.  It either slows up play or isn't followed.  Neither is desirable.  Players shouldn't have to choose between significantly holding up play or following the rules. That's why I am sympathetic to MEfree's position.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that LWH and OB should be treated the same.  I t makes sense to begin with defining the area of play, then to add obstacles to the playing field, and then to penalize the player more severely if he doesn't keep the ball in play, versus if he hits it into one of the obstacles.

But maybe there is some middle ground.  What if a player who thinks his ball might be lost or OB must hit a provisional.  But if he leaves the tee box, then he has to take 2 strokes 2 club lengths from where he believes it crossed the OB line or where he last saw the ball.  I suppose a player who can't hit the ball straight might prefer the 2 strokes/2 clubs to hitting  a provisional, but I think most people would not.  Perhaps if the opponent suggests the ball may be OB the player must hit a provisional.

I think that would protect most of the concerns people have expressed here.

I'd also add rules for the designation of areas as OB--such as OB can only be marked to protect property lines or to protect structures, parking lots, etc. Then you don't get the somewhat arbitrary OB markings that golfingdad mentioned.

I think its possible to fashion better rules that satisfy everyone's concerns.  Except those who oppose any changes to the rules.

[Golfingdad]

I think going back to the tee should be eliminated.  It either slows up play or isn't followed.  Neither is desirable.  Players shouldn't have to choose between significantly holding up play or following the rules. That's why I am sympathetic to MEfree's position.

Im not suggesting it means anything, no nobody get worked up please, but Kelly Tilgman agrees with you. They were talking about it this morning on TGC. :)

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by mad max

C.I don't want to make the rest of the round unpleasant.

D.I am playing well and I don't want to lose my mojo dealing with someone else's drop.

Two great reasons to just play your own game.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think going back to the tee should be eliminated.  It either slows up play or isn't followed.  Neither is desirable.  Players shouldn't have to choose between significantly holding up play or following the rules.  That's why I am sympathetic to MEfree's position.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that LWH and OB should be treated the same.  It makes sense to begin with defining the area of play, then to add obstacles to the playing field, and then to penalize the player more severely if he doesn't keep the ball in play, versus if he hits it into one of the obstacles.

But maybe there is some middle ground.  What if a player who thinks his ball might be lost or OB must hit a provisional.  But if he leaves the tee box, then he has to take 2 strokes 2 club lengths from where he believes it crossed the OB line or where he last saw the ball.  I suppose a player who can't hit the ball straight might prefer the 2 strokes/2 clubs to hitting  a provisional, but I think most people would not.  Perhaps if the opponent suggests the ball may be OB the player must hit a provisional.

I think that would protect most of the concerns people have expressed here.

I'd also add rules for the designation of areas as OB--such as OB can only be marked to protect property lines or to protect structures, parking lots, etc. Then you don't get the somewhat arbitrary OB markings that golfingdad mentioned.

I think its possible to fashion better rules that satisfy everyone's concerns.  Except those who oppose any changes to the rules.

I think the bolded should be an option in non-tournament play, in fact I think it should be the recommended option. Re-teeing in the vast majority of real life scenarios is just not practical.

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Im not suggesting it means anything, no nobody get worked up please, but Kelly Tilgman agrees with you. They were talking about it this morning on TGC. :)

Kelly Tilgman

Kelly Tilgman

Kelly Tilgman

Arrrrrgh!!!!!

LOL.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by MEfree

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 only brought ratings as it relates to obstacles into this because you and others have commented that the markings are seemingly random. The point being it's been accounted for, the proximity of obstacles affect everything from course ratings to hole handicaps. It's a strategical element that if altered changes the way the game is played, the risk would be minimized. It's more than the post shot penalty procedure. It's supposed to make you take it into consideration before the shot. To choose lines based on that risk, to be rewarded in the event you pull it off. You asked if this simplifies the way the game is played. It does but not in the way you propose. It only changes the penalty procedure. It doesn't make it less complex, in some instances it would make it more complex because the application would fail in certain situations, i.e. lost ball. But it changes definitely changes the way the game is played via risk reduction. As the poll has determined it's also unwelcome change.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by mad max

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

I have never question someones drop but I have seen many people drop in a different area than I would have.  I don't question it for one or more of the following reasons, A.I am not positive that they are incorrect.  B.We are not playing for anything important just dinner, or drinks, or just pride.  C.I don't want to make the rest of the round unpleasant.  D.I am playing well and I don't want to lose my mojo dealing with someone elses drop.

How about you Fourputt have you ever questioned another player's drop.  Have you ever thought they dropped in a different spot that you would have and how did you handle it.

I'm talking about tournament play, you are talking about recreational golf, so we are on different topics altogether.  I have questioned a player's drop, or at least assisted him in selecting the correct point, and sometimes that is farther up the hazard than he thought it was.   Such awareness isn't always a negative.

In a recreational round, I don't worry about it, unless there is a wager involved and the discrepancy is significant.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I think the bolded should be an option in non-tournament play, in fact I think it should be the recommended option. Re-teeing in the vast majority of real life scenarios is just not practical.

Then hit a provisional.  That is what they are for.  Since you are talking about the OB case it seems crystal clear to me that re-hitting should almost NEVER be necessary.  If the ball is headed in the direction of an area that has OB, HIT A PROVISIONAL!!!

I'll go along with the change in the OB rule allowing a drop. Provided there is an additional 2 stroke penalty for not hitting a provisional. So take your drop and be hitting, e.g., your 5th shot after an OB tee shot and drop.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Then hit a provisional.  That is what they are for.  Since you are talking about the OB case it seems crystal clear to me that re-hitting should almost NEVER be necessary.  If the ball is headed in the direction of an area that has OB, HIT A PROVISIONAL!!!

Yep, easy enough. I don't want to throw out a bunch scenarios nobody will care about but I could give examples of many on my home course where dropping from OB would lead to a horrible lie that would likely take more time to get out of than any "remedy" mentioned in this thread.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Im not suggesting it means anything, no nobody get worked up please, but Kelly Tilgman agrees with you. They were talking about it this morning on TGC. :)

So I won?

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I think the bolded should be an option in non-tournament play, in fact I think it should be the recommended option. Re-teeing in the vast majority of real life scenarios is just not practical.

I think that's a good idea.

Originally Posted by turtleback

Then hit a provisional.  That is what they are for.  Since you are talking about the OB case it seems crystal clear to me that re-hitting should almost NEVER be necessary.  If the ball is headed in the direction of an area that has OB, HIT A PROVISIONAL!!!

That's a good point.  Sometimes though, you might think you saw it land safe, or you might not know that an area is OB.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

Yep, easy enough. I don't want to throw out a bunch scenarios nobody will care about but I could give examples of many on my home course where dropping from OB would lead to a horrible lie that would likely take more time to get out of than any "remedy" mentioned in this thread.

My proposal would still allow you to hit a provisional.

[Ernest Jones]

So I won? I think that's a good idea.   That's a good point.  Sometimes though, you might think you saw it land safe, or you might not know that an area is OB.

Exactly. Provisional is best and you do that when you think it's OB or lost but for all the times where the ball just "vanishes", ie: you saw it land but it ain't there. Happens all the time, do you slog back +200 yards pissing of your group and the group behind or take a drop with an additional penalty for distance, now hitting 4 from your drop. Again, I'm talking casual/recreational rounds.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by dsc123

My proposal would still allow you to hit a provisional.

What would be the point of that? If the OP's goal was to simplify the rules and speed play this introduces something else to consider and it creates the potential for inequity.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Dave2512

What would be the point of that? If the OP's goal was to simplify the rules and speed play this introduces something else to consider and it creates the potential for inequity.

Those are his reasons, not mine.  The point of my proposal is to ameliorate this:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think going back to the tee should be eliminated.  It either slows up play or isn't followed.  Neither is desirable.  Players shouldn't have to choose between significantly holding up play or following the rules.

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Again, I'm talking casual/recreational rounds.

But permitted by the rules and for handicap purposes in non-competitive rounds, right?

[Ernest Jones]

But permitted by the rules and for handicap purposes in non-competitive rounds, right?

Right. I don't see how much undue advantage would be gained, I mean you're laying 4 on your second shot. And it's only going to occur on those occasions where you fully expect to find your ball in a playable position but don't. Confession: I already do this, but I don't keep a handicap yet, absolutely no one I play with is going to stand around while I slog back to the tee. I already get strange looks when they tell me I'm laying three and I reply, " it's four." And yes, I'll hit a provisional if I suspect it's a goner but you don't always know that.

[Spyder]

Man, I accidentally voted 'No, the(sic) should be the same' on accident....

There's really not much more for me to add to this. Using real-world logic which seems to be missing several people, including the "PGA Guy" who was quoted in the OP, a ball OB is much worse than a ball that is legally in play until deemed unplayable. Therefor, the penalty should be more severe. I can't find any logical argument against this, even if I were to try for debate's sake.